1951-02-27

Hon. Douglas Abboll (Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a measure to provide for the continuance in force of the Foreign Exchange Control Act until sixty days after the commencement of the first session of parliament commencing in the year 1953.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Douglas Charles Abbott: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act, 1944, to extend its operation for a further period of three years and to increase the aggregate amount of farm improvement loans that may be guaranteed.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
If I may, with the permission of the house, I should like to say that this is a resolution to provide for the introduction of a bill to extend the operation of the Farm Improvement Loans Act, which expires on February 28. It has not been possible to introduce a bill for the extension prior to this date. No great harm would be caused if loans were not made for the first few days in March; but it occurred to me that if the house were willing it might be possible to consider this resolution at nine o'clock tonight, and with unanimous consent, to give the bill first reading to enable hon. members to see it, and possibly second reading tomorrow. If the house should give second reading to the bill
tomorrow and approve it in principle, the banks, on my assurance that the bill is likely to pass, would be prepared to continue, without interruption, making loans under the act.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the house shall consider this motion at nine o'clock this evening?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Graydon:: You have abolished the Senate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. Earl Catherwood (Haldimand):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the minister given consideration to the question of pensions for the totally disabled and crippled who are unable to provide for themselves?
Will the minister make a statement to the house as to the progress or the extent of the negotiations with the provinces on the matter of old age pensions?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman was kind enough to give me notice of his question. As he knows, the conference on problems relating to the disabled was held in Toronto on February 1, 2 and 3 of this year, under the joint sponsorship of the departments of labour, veterans affairs, and health and welfare. At this conference varied aspects of the problems of the disabled were discussed.
All ten provincial governments were represented at the conference, along with delegates from the important voluntary agencies working in the field. As my hon. friend knows, of course the provincial governments have a principal interest in this problem, although the federal authority has certain responsibilities toward special groups, such as disabled ex-servicemen.
It may be of interest to note a fact which was brought to the attention of the conference with respect to economic maintenance now being provided for the disabled through a variety of legislative provisions. Disability

Inquiries of the Ministry pensions or allowances of one kind or another are now being provided under various governmental auspices to approximately 325,000 disabled persons. Regarding this type of problem, I am sure the hon. member will agree that it is only realistic to point out that note must be made of current international obligation and interests.
With regard to the second question, I would say that following the federal provincial conference in December of last year, and at the suggestion of the provinces, the federal government submitted to each province a draft amendment to the constitution which, if acceptable, would facilitate the realization of a contributory system of old age pensions.
Some of the provinces have agreed to the amendment in terms suggested. Others have raised questions as to its wording and effect. While the government of one province has received legislative confirmation of its authority to deal with the matter of a constitutional amendment, it has not yet indicated its final attitude.
In further replying I would simply call my hon. friend's attention to the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) as it is reported in Hansard for February 5, at this session.


Gordon Graydon: I should like to ask a further question, and if the minister has not the information offhand I shall be happy to have it later. Has he any idea how many disabled persons there are in Canada?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is no final assessment made of that, no.


Mr. Brooks:: Does this figure of 325,000
include veterans?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.



EMBARKATION LEAVE FOR CANADIAN BRIGADE PERSONNEL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) or, in his absence, of the parliamentary assistant. Are the present members of the Korean brigade who are about to embark for the east to be granted embarkation leave?


Mr. J. A. Blanchette (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence):: May I take this as notice of the question?
[Mr. Martin.)



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: I
should like to ask a question of the Postmaster General. During the last week or so, have new instructions for the clarification of instructions been forwarded to postmasters in cities throughout Canada regarding one mail delivery per day instead of two?


Hon. Edouard Rinfret (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, quite a number of such confidential instructions have been sent to postmasters in the last couple of weeks. I believe there must be five or six. I do not know whether in the last week there have been new instructions given.
At the present time we are conducting a survey as to the best way of absorbing the number of letter carriers we shall have to let out before March 31. The instructions were issued with a view to conducting that survey, so that on March 31 we shall know exactly where we stand and how many letter carriers who have to be let out can be brought back into the service.
A few days ago the hon. member for Peterborough West asked as to the number of people who would become available either directly or indirectly through this cut. I would reply that there will be approximately 1,200. The financial saving effected will be in the neighbourhood of $3,500,000.



CIVIL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: should like to ask a question which comes to mind as a result of the question just asked the Postmaster General. Would the Prime Minister say whether assurances have been given to the men in the public service that if they enlist they will be protected so far as superannuation and seniority are concerned, upon their return from war service?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I would not wish to give an offhand answer. I shall take the question as a notice, and get the precise information with proper references to the measures effective.



QUESTION AS TO LAY-OFF OF CERTAIN EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask

if the Prime Minister is yet in a position to answer the question I asked on February 19 regarding lay-offs in the civil service as part of the government's economy program.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The officers of the department are now making a survey and preparing a statement which I hope will be ready within the next few days.



REPORTED USE OF COLOURING MATTER IN PRODUCTION OF BROWN LOAF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the Minister of National Health
and Welfare ready to answer the question I asked yesterday about dyed bread?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have the answer, and I believe it would save the time of the house if I were permitted to table it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, that would be satisfactory, so long as it appears in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house
that it be placed on Hansard?


Major James William Coldwell: Should not the answer
appear in Hansard, since the question asked is in Hansard?


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the danger of this process should be recognized, no matter what the subject matter may be. This House of Commons has prided itself on the fact that it has never fallen into the practice of permitting statements simply to be filed-a procedure which is followed in some other legislative bodies-instead of requiring that speeches be actually delivered. There are certain exceptions; long records are sometimes filed and placed on Hansard, but there are special reasons for that. The procedure now suggested would establish a most undesirable principle.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not usually accede to my hon. friend's suggestion, but this time I think I should. The answer is as follows:
There is no standard under the Food and Drugs Act for ordinary brown bread. It has only to conform to the general requirements for bread and may or may not contain whole wheat flour, molasses, caramel or other permitted food colour without label declaration.
However, there is a standard under the Food and Drugs Act for "Vitamin B brown bread (Canada approved)". This standard 80709-46
Indian Act
provides a brown bread which is an excellent source of the B vitamins and must contain at least 60 per cent whole wheat flour- vitamin B whole wheat flour (Canada approved)-and not more than 40 per cent of a high vitamin white flour-vitamin B white flour (Canada approved). It also must contain at least four per cent of skim milk solids.
No one may advertise or mention vitamins in connection with bread that does not conform to the standard for either vitamin B brown bread (Canada approved) or vitamin B white bread (Canada approved).
The baker may choose the kind of brown bread he wishes to make, but if he sells vitamin B brown bread (Canada approved), it must conform to the standard under the Food and Drugs Act.



INDIAN ACT


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend, consolidate and clarify the Indian Act, and to provide, inter alia, for band funds and expenditures therefrom, and for other appropriations in case of deficiency, or lack of band funds.


Major James William Coldwell: The minister should make a statement, I suggest.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Isn't the minister going to make a statement in connection with this matter?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker,
although the house is fairly well informed about Indian affairs, I shall accede to the request of the opposition and make a brief statement.
Indian legislation in Canada is almost a hundred years old. The first Indian Act was passed by the old province of Canada, in 1857, and it provided for what was then referred to as the civilization and enfranchisement of Indians. The parliament of Canada in 1869 passed its first Indian Act, which was described as an act for the gradual enfranchisement of Indians. There were two amendments between that year and 1880, at which time there was a general revision of the act.
Since that time there have been fourteen amendments, but no revision, with the result that I think all hon. members will agree with the wording of the resolution, namely that it is expedient to introduce a measure to revise the Indian Act.

Indian Act
In the years 1946, 1947 and 1948, a special joint committee of both houses of parliament met, and there was a very thorough examination of Indian affairs. The committee made a number of recommendations, both as to policy and as to practice, and suggested a number of amendments to the act. One of the most important recommendations was that there should be a revision of the Indian Act. The reason for that was obvious to all those who served on the committee. Many sections of the Indian Act had long since outlived their usefulness and by their wording were a reproach on the status which the Indian has attained in this country. In addition there were provisions urgently needed in the act to give the Indian that standard of self-determination and self-government which his status now requires.
The house will recall that last session we introduced Bill No. 267 to amend and revise the act. At that time I pointed out that if the bill were passed we would no doubt receive representations in the interval and that this session we would consider proper amendments. I hope that we shall continue to do that from year to year. The Indian Act is always subject to revision and improvement.
After the bill was withdrawn we wrote to every Indian or Indian organization, and to every white or white organization that was interested in the bill, and asked that they send written representations. The representations came in during the fall months. They have been classified and will be available to the house in due course.
In order that I might understand the viewpoints of the Indians, I visited a good many officers of the Indian organizations during the fall months, as well as a number of the larger reserves, where I consulted with their band councils. Of course I could not give any assurance as to what the legislation might be, and at the moment the Indians are as uncertain as ourselves as to what revisions there will be in the bill which will be introduced when this resolution is passed. In order to conform with what I am sure is the wish of every member of this house, that the Indians should be consulted as much as possible in connection with legislation dealing with their lives and property, we decided to invite to Ottawa representative Indians to discuss the bill after its introduction. I want to express my thanks to the leaders of the opposition parties for making that possible by agreeing that we could fix a date for the meeting, and that in all probability the resolution could be passed by that time and the bill made available. The Indians are
rMr. Harris (Grey-Bruce).]
now arriving and are prepared to discuss the bill tomorrow if it can be given first reading today.
This is an historic occasion for the Indians. Until this moment representative Indians have not sat down with a minister of the crown to discuss legislation affecting them. I hope that as a result of this conference we may have useful amendments to present to the house at later stages of this bill. I am not going to discuss the details of the bill now. It might be sufficient to say that, as the house would expect, this government has utilized the intervening time to improve this legislation, as it is doing constantly in all other respects.


Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that the minister has been in touch with the Indians and other persons interested in their welfare and has received their ideas in connection with the bill introduced last year. I am glad also that the minister has asked representatives of the Indians to be here in Ottawa to discuss with him the bill which this resolution is serving to introduce. I think that is a move in the right direction. It was a course which we suggested should be followed when the bill was introduced last year. It was not done at that time, and I am glad that that mistake has been rectified.
I do not want at this time to rake over a lot of old straw in connection with the Indian question, so I shall be brief. However, there are one or two comments I should like to make. The Indian question has had a great deal of attention, both in parliament and throughout the country, particularly during the past six years. In my opinion there has been altogether too much talk and not enough action on the part of the government to remove the injustices about which the Indians have been and are still complaining.
I think the bill that was introduced last year was a regrettable mistake. In the first place, it aroused fears of all kinds among the Indians as to what was going to happen to them if the bill went through. In the second place, it destroyed high hopes which had been built up in their minds as a result of the sittings of the Indian committee, and so on, during the previous three or four years, that the new bill would constitute for them what was often referred to as an Indian Magna Carta or an Indian bill of rights. It left them in a very discouraged frame of mind, so far as I was able to see.
As the minister has said, a joint committee of this house and the other place on Indian affairs met in 1946, 1947, and 1948. That committee presented a long list of recommendations for administrative and other

Indian Act
improvements in the handling of our Indians, and it also submitted a draft bill. I am glad to see that a number of the recommendations made by that committee have been acted upon, and I think as a result the administration of the Indian affairs branch is now much improved in many respects over what it was prior to that time.
Unfortunately the bill which was introduced last year bore little resemblance in many important respects to the draft bill recommended by the committee, nor did it follow out the recommendations made by the Indians as to the kind of bill they wanted and the things that they thought were unjust and should be changed. The bill was withdrawn as a result of the strong opposition shown toward it, not only in this house but by organizations throughout the country and the Indians themselves. It was withdrawn also because of the manifest unfairness of not allowing the Indians time to study it and make representations and recommendations in connection with it. As I stated at the beginning, I am glad to see that that mistake is not being repeated this year. I am glad to learn that representatives of the Indians are here, and I presume that they will have time to study the bill and discuss it thoroughly with the minister and his officials.
I hope that the more objectionable features of Bill 267 which was introduced last year have been changed and that the changes will be approved by a majority of the Indians. There are two things in particular which I think must be changed before the bill can be acceptable, either to the Indians or to the white people who have their interests at heart. The first is the definition of Indian. The definition must be such that large numbers of Indians who have been brought up as such and know only the Indian way of life will not be thrown suddenly out into the ordinary white man's world in which they are not equipped to look after themselves or to make a living. I think one of the great objections to the bill introduced last year was the definition of Indian and the results that flowed from it. The bad effects of that definition appeared in section after section. If the new bill is to get support, that is one of the things which must be rectified.
The second point is that the arbitrary power of the minister to determine nearly everything of importance in the life of the Indian, without appeal from the minister's decision except in some cases to the governor in council, must be done away with. The Indian must be put on a par with the white man, in fact with every other citizen in Canada, so far as the right of appeal to the courts 80709-46 i
against decisions of the minister and his officials is concerned. The situation that has prevailed and that would have prevailed under the new bill introduced last year-as a matter of fact under it the situation would have been worse-was that in nearly every case decisions with respect to whether a man was an Indian, what his rights to land were under the Indian Act, and so on, were in the hands of the minister, and there was no appeal from them.
I think anything less than granting to the Indian the ordinary right of appeal to the courts against decisions of that sort makes our adherence to the United Nations declaration of human rights and fundamental freedoms nothing more than a farce. It means that in our own country we are not prepared to apply those principles to the first citizens of the land. That was perhaps the most important change that needed to be made in the bill introduced last year, and it is one which I most sincerely trust has been made in the new bill to be presented to us.
I said I would be brief; therefore I shall reserve any other comments until the bill has been presented and I have had an opportunity to study it and get the reaction of the Indians.


Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the introduction of this resolution, and I hope the bill to follow it will have a longer life in the house than the one introduced last year. Bill 267 was introduced last year on the 7th of June, and on the 22nd of June it was withdrawn. Like the hon. member who preceded me, I want to be brief. We cannot say very much about this matter because we do not know what is in the bill. I know what was in the bill that was introduced last year, and I am optimistic enough to expect that the new bill is going to be far better. I think the minister will have done a pretty good job on it.
It is seventy years since the first Indian Act was passed. Amendments have been made from time to time, but the grievances that the Indians have complained about so much have not been corrected. I understand from the minister's statement that he has invited to Ottawa representative Indians from the different provinces. I think that is good, and the minister must be commended for so doing. Perhaps my viewpoint is selfish, but I should like to know if he has invited a representative from the Manitoba Indian association and a representative from the unaffiliated Indians of Manitoba. He shook his head one time and not the next time, but we shall know when we see the Indians

Indian Act
who come here to represent them. I read in the newspapers that the legislature of the province of British Columbia has set up an Indian inquiry committee to deal with the welfare of the Indians. When a government will go to that extent in the interests of the Indians of their province I think they should have a representative here. However, we will find that out too.
Coming back to Manitoba, I find the greatest problem there is that the Indians still live in the past. I do not know whether that is good or bad, but when you speak to an Indian and tell him what we would like to do for him, how we are going to improve his condition, he immediately takes you back to 1871 and tells you what he was promised at that time. He tells you about the time when they met Governor Archibald and W. Simpson, the commissioner, and what he promised them.
As I see it, one great difficulty is that we gave control of our natural resources to the provinces but we never gave any protection to the Indian. We just let it go at that. When these Indians signed the treaty they were guaranteed fishing and hunting rights but they do not have those things today. There should be some compensation given to them.
I want to be brief, although I could go on for a long time because this is a subject that is close to my heart.


Mr. Blackmore:: Go on.


William Scottie Bryce: I think education is the crux of the question. Indian children should be educated in the same manner as white children, so that they will look at things the same way that we do. Let us take the residential schools. Pupils are brought there from the surrounding district at the age of eight. They are kept there until they are sixteen years old, and they haive been doing everything the way that the white man does. Then we turn them loose and send them back to the reserves. They neither fit into the reserve nor anywhere else. You will find them loafing around poolrooms. I do not think we should do away with the residential schools. We will need them in outlying districts, but when we take pupils out of the residential schools we should provide vocational training to take care of them until they are twenty-one years of age. Then they will be able to take their place among the white people.
I have heard some people say that the Indian does not know anything. Do not believe that. I have travelled quite a lot among the Indians and the knowledge of some of those I have seen has really surprised me. I claim to be a first-class mechanic, having

served my apprenticeship on the river Clyde. I visited Norway House a couple of years ago, and there I saw an Indian doing something that I do not think I would have been able to do. He took two old outboard motors and made one out of them. When he told me what he was going to do I had doubts about it. The next day, however, he came put-putting down the river, and had done a wonderful job. If you go into the north country you will see Indians who are wonderful sawyers for slabbing logs and making lumber. They are as good as any white man. I have seen them do repairs that would astonish the ordinary mechanic, and they had no tools of any kind to do the job.
I always feel reluctant about praising the Liberals for doing anything.


Mr. Fleming:: Don't do it.


William Scottie Bryce: You see the reception I get, but I want to be honest.


Mr. Fulton:: So do the rest of us.


Mr. Blue:: You cannot help yourself.


William Scottie Bryce: The government should be congratulated upon what it has done for the health and welfare of the Indians. When I first went among the Indians about nine or ten years ago they were dying like flies. Today the government has improved the situation.


Mr. Sinnolt:: Good old Liberal government.


William Scottie Bryce: You go easy, because I could mention a great many things they have not done. Nine or ten years ago the Indian population was decreasing by about 1,000 a year. Today it is increasing by about 1,500 a year, and it can be reasonably estimated that in thirty years we shall have 200,000 Indians in this country. You cannot keep those people as wards of the government, when the country belonged to them in the first place; you must do something for them.
I do not want to take up more time, Mr. Speaker. As I said in the first place, I welcome the resolution. It will be practically impossible to please every Indian in this country, so I believe we will have to give the greatest benefit to the greatest number.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, in rising on this occasion I am not a bit concerned about hurrying this resolution through. I believe the house as a whole has been rather remiss in its duty, on a good many occasions, in letting the resolution stage go by without much discussion, because that is the only stage during which the ordinary member has a chance of saying the things he should say without having a chairman riding him every step of the way, calling him to order and all that kind of thing. This

is the only chance hon. members have to get from the government something about what they propose to do. So let us not be too anxious about getting this thing through. Everything the government is doing for the Indians it can continue to do without a new act; and many things it is not doing for the Indians certainly could be done even without a new act. So let us take time to deliberate on this matter and see where we are going.
We may be putting through legislation which will be operative in Canada for thirty or forty years. I have had enough experience with the problems of the Indians to know that when it comes to getting reforms in respect to them, governments move dreadfully slowly, especially if they are none too keen about those reforms. So I am not promising to cut my remarks short, either at this or any other stage of the legislation, and I do not believe the minister really wants that to happen. If there are things in this act he can rectify now, I am sure he wants to do that. I have great confidence in the minister. I believe he is forwardlooking and desirous of doing the right thing as long as his influence lasts in this country, and I hope that will be for a long time, if I appraise him rightly, as I believe I do.
A minister of the crown is under a great deal of pressure, and occasionally he may yield to pressure from outside the house instead of pressure from inside. After all, this house is elected by the people of Canada to put some pressure on the government to bring about the results desired by the people, and if we exercise that pressure enough we will strengthen the hands of the ministers. So a good strong opposition does the government no harm.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw to the attention of this house and of the people the fact that from 1914 to 1918 we fought the kaiser of Germany. In those days we were told, and we told each other, that we were fighting him because he dealt with a sacred treaty as a scrap of paper, when he invaded Belgium. Do you remember that? Well, Mr. Speaker, ever since 1867, when this nation was formed, Canada has been consistently and progressively breaking solemn treaties with a great people, the Indians; dealing with them not only as scraps of paper in word but in act and in fact; undermining and destroying those treaties.
We want to know whether the new Indian Act is going to make a change in this respect. Will this act see to it that we maintain with appropriate sanctity the treaties entered into one hundred and fifty years ago, which the Indians accepted at face value? It may be argued that we have no responsibility with respect to treaties made by the king with
Indian Act
the Indians back in 1763. I utterly fail to follow the reasoning of anyone who can take such a stand. Certainly when Canada took over responsibility for governing this country, she took over the responsibility that had been assumed by the king or queen of Great Britain in respect of all the people of Canada. If that is not so I fail to find reason at all in the whole situation.
What kind of people are dealt with in these treaties that we have been disregarding? The latest figures I have been able to get indicate that there were 136,407 Indians in Canada in 1949. If those were put together in one area it would make quite a respectable province. We trust their numbers will increase, because they are a great people and valuable citizens of this country. The Indians constitute a magnificent asset if only we will let them be what they want to be. If they continue to increase, as the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) indicated, before too long they may number well up toward a million. They will be good Canadians, too, far better than many of the persons we have brought here and tried to make into Canadians.
As everyone knows, the Indians -were the first Canadians and the first Americans. The Canadian Indians were never conquered; I think it well that we should bear that in mind. When the white man came to Canada the Indians welcomed him and treated him with generosity and honour; and never did they cease to do just exactly that. Whenever we had arrangements or dealings with the Indians we made treaties with them. This makes a tremendous difference in our general outlook in reference to the Indians. As I said a moment ago, the Indians of America welcomed the first white man because they had learned from their fathers that they expected the return of a great white god. That is common history, well known to every member of this house, and it is a strong indication concerning the history of the Indians. Was there a time when there was a great white god in this country? Did he set up a religion? Did he teach them right living? Did he depart, promising that he would come again? The evidence all tends to show that this was so. Therefore the Indians expected the white man and welcomed him.
Wherever the Indians of Canada yielded possession of the land and the rights they had in the land, they gave that possession under sacred and solemn treaties. These treaties, in a large and increasing measure, deprived the Indians of at least three of the much talked about four freedoms supposed to be granted by the delusive Atlantic charter. The three freedoms which, in large measure, were taken away indirectly from the Indians

Indian Act
were: freedom from want, freedom from fear and freedom of religion.
Now, by each of these treaties the Indians became wards of the Canadian government, as every member of the house and every person in Canada knows who pretends to have any information about Canada. Canada has become responsible for seeing that the Indians get adequate food, clothing, and shelter, as those constitute freedom from want. If they are to compete successfully in Canadian life, they must have education and equality before Canadian law. Without education and without equality before Canadian law, freedom from fear is simply a meaningless expression. No white man can be free from fear without a suitable education and equality before the law; how can an Indian be free from fear without those things?
I contend, Mr. Speaker, that from the day Canada took over the administration of the Indians up to this moment there has not been anything like a guarantee of adequate education or equality before the law for any *of the Indians. I realize that is a sweeping and terrible denunciation of Canada's management of the Indian problem. I do not suppose it would be well for me to discuss [DOT]this in detail just now, but perhaps I shall before I conclude this speech. The statement I have made stands capable of proof to the hilt, because Canada made treaties with the Indians as equals not on the basis of conquering them. Canada became responsible for guaranteeing the Indians security of tenure of land, and security of the right to continue as Indians.
We have done much better by our Indians in respect to those two rights. We have, in a large measure, treated the Indians' land with respect, leaving them in possession of the little bit of land we have agreed to let them have. We have also, in a large measure, guaranteed to the Indian the right to continue to be an Indian. We have done several things, however, which have made it almost impossible for the Indian to continue the religion that his father left him. We rather blithely, and in cavalier fashion, assumed that the religion we would teach the Indian was far superior in the matter of producing good men and women. I shall make no comment on the matter, but I have heard a good many Indians make rather severe comments. A good many of them have simply pointed to the effects which have been produced among them. They say no further comment is necessary.
We have, in a large measure, rendered it impossible for our Indians to retain their religion in its pure and undefiled form because, in almost all cases, we have made

it necessary for the boys and girls who wish to attain an education to attend a school directed by some religious organization whose -I almost said whose primary objective, but I will not go as far as that-objective, at least understood, was to inculcate into the boys and girls a disregard for their own native religion.
Because of the social, political and religious history of the Indians, we have assumed the responsibility of granting them a varying degree of self-government or autonomy in their tribes and bands. One of the things that are worrying the Indians wherever I have met them is this. At several places in western Canada the minister made a remark to the effect it was his intention to integrate the Indians with the white people. This word "integrate" is one of those chameleonlike words. It can mean anything you want it to mean, according to the way you use it. The Indians have every reason for fearing that it will mean there will be a deliberate ministerial and administrative pressure brought to bear on them to accept citizenship in Canada whether or not they desire it, thus becoming less and less integral parts of the tribe or band and less and less Indians. I understand the Indians do not like this very well. I maintain they have a right to dislike it and a right to resist it.
Let us look for a moment at those rights which we ought to have guaranteed to the Indians to see how far we have gone in our guarantee. First of all, what have we done in so far as food is concerned? I shall keep my eye on western Canada for the moment, because I am more familiar with western Canada. Before the treaties were signed in western Canada there were herds of buffalo roaming the plains which provided the Indians with plentiful food, clothing and even teepees. Because of policies put into operation by the government of Canada, these buffalo were destroyed, and with their destruction the source of the Indians' food, shelter and clothing was swept away. What did the government do, as a whole or as a part, to restore to the Indians a source of food, clothing and shelter following upon the destruction of the buffalo? So far as I can ascertain, not one thing.
Going a little bit further so far as shelter is concerned, when the treaties were signed- the treaty in my particular constituency was signed in 1877-there was plenty of brush; there were many trees and large areas of forest. The white man came; he cut down the trees, and in many cases he burnt them in forest fires. What was done to restore to the Indians the fuel they needed? Nothing at all. They are there today, the Blood Indians,

Indian Act
who I suppose are amongst the most fortunately situated Indians of Canada, with hardly any timber they can cut for firewood. They must buy the white man's coal, and they must give the white man the white man's dollars for the coal-and they find the obtaining of the dollars a very difficult matter.
What have we done to restore to them what we allowed to be taken away from them in the matter of fuel which is so important in the making of shelter? People will say, "Well, we could not help it." Right in that very area where these Indians are, there is coal in superabundance, and are we to be told that we could not cause that coal to be mined, and a sufficient amount of it put into the hands of the Indians, or at least rendered available to them? But we have not done anything. Does the proposed act intend to do anything? Does the bill indicate a change in policy under which the government will realize that we owe a responsibility to these Indians which we have never even attempted to discharge?
Go into the other areas and you will find a fishing problem entering in. Indians who for centuries had spent their lives fishing their food out of the streams were cut off from the streams, as happened so often in British Columbia, or found when they went to the streams that the white man had fished the fish out of the stream far down below, rendering their source of supply barren from that time on. What have we done about it? Just completely nothing. Yet in the signing of the treaties we solemnly agreed that we would allow the Indians to fish, cut trees, pick berries, hunt rabbits on the prairies and other kinds of game as long as the sun shone and the water ran and the grass grew. Sounding brass and tinkling cymbal!
These are serious matters, Mr. Speaker; they are very serious matters. The Indian has to face the problem of finding food, clothing and shelter for his children on these reserves which are denuded of all sources from which he formerly obtained these things, and we have allowed it to go on; in fact, we have abetted the white man in speeding up the denuding of the reserves or the area round about.
Let us come to education. Let us face right up to the facts. I am going to keep my eye on the Blood Indian reservation because I am familiar with it. I have had scores of the fine, noble, dignified men who constitute the elders of the Blood Indians come into my home and sit and talk to me, and ask me what on earth could be done.
There are two church schools on that reservation. I am grateful to the Roman Catholic church and the Anglican church for coming
in and establishing those schools, because they at least gave the Indians some kind of opportunity for education; but in some instances there are Indians who are living almost a hundred miles from these schools. Imagine an Indian with meagre resources setting out to take his children seventy-five miles over the prairie in order to get to one of those schools. How would we feel if we had to take our children seventy-five miles to school? The Indian now sees fine busses, fine vans, just off the reservation, going to every home practically in the countryside, picking up the boys and girls and conveying them to school every morning and back home at night in perfect comfort and ease, and in complete security through supervision, while he has nothing like that. And yet we pretend we have given the Indian a chance for education right now.
Remember, we permitted our farmers in areas probably within ten or fifteen miles to form themselves into a school district and build their little country schools to educate their children, where the distances were not too great, and where they could have the children in their homes at night; the children could help them, and they could enjoy the children. We have never done anything like that for the Indians, and apparently we do not intend to.
There has to be heart-searching; there has to be an about-face in this matter. People ask: Where are you going to get the money? Where do you think the Indians are getting the money? How do you suppose they can get the money when we, with our industrial strength and investment, cannot do it? Well, we have got to do it, if we are to be just ordinary decent people. That is all.
We cannot oblige Indians to take their children thirty and forty miles to a residential school and leave them there for weeks and weeks. We have to enable them to have schools equipped and under proper supervision and with proper teaching.


An hon. Member:: And in contact with their parents.


John Horne Blackmore: And in contact with their parents so that the children can be raised according to the will of the parents; and these parents often have pretty high ideals.
We have not begun to guarantee the Indians the education which we were in duty bound to guarantee and to provide when we signed these treaties. I think I should just read a little passage from treaty No. 7, which is the one under which the Blood Indians, along with three other tribes, surrendered almost enough territory in southern Alberta to make an empire, some of the

Indian Act
richest land to be found anywhere today, land to which we are now bringing water, and from which we are producing wealth untold. This territory was surrendered under treaty No. 7 in 1877, and I shall read to the house what is written about education in that treaty. It reads as follows:
Further, Her Majesty agrees to pay the salary of such teachers to instruct the children of said Indians as to her government of Canada may seem advisable, when the said Indians are settled on their reserves and shall desire teachers.
Of course, we know that there is an escape phrase there. There is a hole in the thing big enough for a team of horses to go through where it says: "Such teachers as to her government of Canada may seem advisable". It is clear that to her government of Canada it has not seemed advisable to supply teachers to teach these boys and girls so that they will have something like a chance to go out to school, to go into high schools and universities, to equip themselves in order that they may not have a lack of education as a handicap along with the dark colour with which God has been pleased to bless them.
We will leave education and take up equality before the Canadian law. Mr. Speaker, the ordinary Indian in Canada cannot even get before the Canadian law, much less get equality before it.


Walter Edward Harris: Would the hon. member permit me to interrupt? I do not think there is any foundation whatever for that statement.


John Horne Blackmore: I think before the minister is much older he will see that there is a lot of foundation for it, when everything that vitally concerns the Indian is decided by the governor in council and by agents on the reserves. And you tell me that he has a chance to get before the law? Why, a whole tribe of Indians cannot get before the law!


Walter Edward Harris: Oh, yes, they can.


John Horne Blackmore: How far would one of us get, if he could not get before the law, if he could not go before the courts?
Let us face realities; let us do a little factual thinking.
Then I come to No. 6, security of land tenure, and No. 7, security of the right to continue as Indians. I shall not discuss No. 6 at the moment; but, with respect to the right to continue as Indians, the indications are that when the minister says he proposes to integrate the Indians with the Canadian people he could easily mean he intends to make them non-Indians. Perhaps that is not what he means, but the possibility is there. Then, with regard to No. 8, self-government, I shall say no more at the moment.

The important question that the house and country must ask the minister, if they wish to treat Indians as they ought to be treated, is this: Does the minister in his proposed new act intend guaranteeing the Indians each of the eight rights and privileges I have just set out? If he does not, then his act will be completely useless because it will fail to guarantee those rights. Now is the time for the House of Commons to find out.
After the bill comes before the house what chance have we to do anything? Every hon. member knows right well that when a bill is introduced it is immediately given first reading, at which time no one is permitted to say a word. Then, when we come to second reading we are permitted to talk about the principle of the bill. Mr. Speaker, if he is so disposed, can pretty nearly rule one out of order on almost any count, because no one can- tell us what the principle of the bill will be. Can -anyone define the principle of the Indian Act? I would like to hear several people try to do it.
After all, what good is a speech on second reading, dealing with the principle of the bill? After all hon. members have had their say, the government comes along with its steam roller and brushes everyone to one side-just as a bulldozer would sweep aside six inches of snow. Surely that is not what parliament was designed to do! Parliament was designed to be an institution which would make the government pay attention to the opposition. But the opposition has no chance in the world in the debate on second reading of a bill.
Then we come to the committee stage. There, again, the chairman can rule out of order pretty nearly anything. I have been here fifteen years and I speak with authority in the matter. I say that if we want to make any kind of effective opposition to the bill, and if we want to get anything done, now is the time to do it.
What do the Indians think of Bill 267, which the proposed bill is intended to replace? I think it was the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) who has said that we do not know what is in the new bill. Well, that is exactly the trouble. The minister may be reintroducing Bill 267 in exactly the same form, for all we know. I think we are entitled to know a little bit about how many changes have been made, and the nature of those changes. If we are not, well then v/e might as well fold up and go home, so far as this bill is concerned.
What did the Indians have to say about Bill 267? I have in my hand a document which has probably reached the desk of each member in the house. It is dated September

9, 1950, from the Caughnawaga reserve in Quebec. Everyone knows that the Caughnawaga Indians are of a pretty high type. The first paragraph of this letter states:
We, the councillors and life chiefs of Caughnawaga, St. Regis and Oka reserves duly assembled on the ninth day of September in the year of Our Lord 1950, at a grand council to discuss the merits of the proposed new Indian Act, have found that a large number of the clauses are detrimental to the best interests of the Indians.
That is a sweeping statement, is it not? Who are the people signing this letter? There are sixteen major chiefs, including Mike T. Montour, John Woodlands, Constant Albany, Joe Martin, Eddie Delaronde, John Diobo, Matthew Lazare-and there are others. Anyone who was before the committee on Indian affairs had a chance to know those splendid men. I have mentioned only some of them. Then, paragraph 2 of the letter states:
We hereby register our protest that we cannot accept the bill, as it is an entirely negative one and apparently designed to govern an inferior and subordinate people and' to keep them inferior and subordinate. It also tends to destroy the racial identity of the Indian and submerge it out of sight.
And paragraph 3:
If this bill be passed in its present form, the new Indian Act will be the most bureaucratic and dictatorial legislation ever imposed on mankind.
One might imagine that the people writing this letter are ignorant people. If they are, it is our fault: shame on us! But if they are well informed, as their letter indicates, then their words are worthy of note.
Turning to the latter part of the letter we see where these people quote history and refer to the various treaties which have been signed affecting them. We see that they are not an uneducated people. Then the fourth paragraph states:
The Hon. Mr. Walter Harris, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, stated June 21 last that the Indian policy is the integration of the Indians. We protest against this policy of Mr. Harris, as it is our desire to remain Indians today and in the future. We are not ashamed but proud of being Indians. You would place us in the position where we would have no equality under the law but would be at the beck and call and under the control of your officials on the reserves.
And, may I add, there is no reference to the courts at all. Then, paragraph No. 5:
We Indians do not wish to become citizens of your government or any other government; we are loyal to our Indian form of government, and we want to be free to enjoy our liberty as guaranteed to us by our great constitution of the Six Nations.
There are many more things I should like to say, if I had the time. However the time now at my disposal is exhausted. I would refer to the Alberta submission. We find exactly the same thing in the submission from that province, made as the result of a
Indian Act
meeting of Indians from throughout the far-flung province of Alberta. They met in two places, at Calgary on August 17 and 18 and Hobbema on August 24. Perhaps before the debate is concluded I shall read to the house the names of the people who were there. They came, at great cost and great inconvenience, and at a time when normally the Indian is making hay and doing other things essential to his livelihood. Those men spent days giving the most careful consideration to every section and phrase in the act.
Here I have a lengthy dissertation setting forth their reactions to each section. In spite of all that careful consideration, they agree almost identically with the Caughnawaga Indians, their brethren in Quebec. I maintain that these considered, wise and careful statements from Indians condemning the act so completely cannot safely be disregarded by members of the House of Commons.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, at this stage of proceedings in connection with a bill to amend the Indian Act, as hon. members who have preceded me have said, it is not possible to discuss in detail the provisions of the legislation, for the very good reason that we have not those provisions before us. The minister has not given to the house any clear indication of the extent to which the new legislation which he proposes to introduce differs from Bill No. 267 which we had before us last year. For that reason, I think it is proper for us to make some comments on the deficiencies which we found in that legislation in the hope that they will be remedied in the proposed bill. I think it is to some extent our duty as well as our right to indicate that we object to certain provisions in the hope that an expression from the members of the house may influence the minister before the bill is actually presented and before it would be more difficult to change those provisions.
I do not believe that any hon. member of this house, however anxious he may be to become acquainted with the problems and views of the Indians, can say that he speaks as an expert, that he is qualified one hundred per cent to represent exactly what the Indians feel. But I do know that many members have made as far as they were able to an exhaustive study of the provisions of the Indian legislation, and exhaustive inquiries into the views of Indians in their own districts. One of the difficulties we find in dealing with Indian affairs is that the views of the Indians differ widely from region to region.
This brings me to the first suggestion that I wish to make to the minister on behalf of

Indian Act
the Indians of British Columbia. The Indians in the interior of the province have formed themselves into an organization known as the interior confederacy. At a meeting of that association called shortly before this session convened, and which I had the privilege of attending, the Indians considered Bill No. 267 and prepared a brief which they asked me to lay before the house and the minister.
One of the fundamental considerations in their minds was the fact that British Columbia Indians have problems quite different from those of Indians in the rest of Canada. As the minister well knows, probably the outstanding difference is that there are no treaty Indians in British Columbia. Most of the Indians in the rest of the country have their rights and positions defined by treaties which were made, either with the government or with administrators who acted before a government was formed back to the days when the country was a colony. There exists no such situation in British Columbia.
The Indians of British Columbia therefore feel that their problems and status are different. As you know, British Columbia is the one province where Indian affairs are administered by an Indian commissioner. We are unique in that particular. Our Indians feel that, their status being different, their problems being different, there should be, if not a separate act to cover the position of the British Columbia Indians, at least a separate part of the main Indian Act to deal with their situation.
I think it is fair to state or suggest as a possibility, or more than a possibility, that the difficulties of contributing to the welfare of the Indians in the rest of Canada, the difficulties of bringing them into full citizenship, are to some extent complicated by the existence of those treaties. There being no such treaties in British Columbia it is not right that our Indians should be held back and the solution of their problems retarded in any way by the fact that the solution of other problems is made more difficult or complicated by the existence of treaties. I think there is a good deal in what the Indians there have suggested and I hope the minister will give consideration to their request. I do not know whether there is a separate part or separate sections of the bill dealing with the Indians of British Columbia, but I strongly suggest that if there is not, there might well be.
I should like now to refer to a matter which has been touched upon by at least two speakers who have preceded me, the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) and

the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Black-more). I refer to the right of appeal to the courts on the part of the Indians of this country. Surely the time has arrived when we above all other nations, having played and still playing a leading part in international and other discussions with respect to the freedom of the individual and the right of self-determination, cannot afford to perpetuate any longer a condition under which there exists in our society a class or race or nation or section of society with inferior rights in connection with the most fundamental of all freedoms, the right of free recourse to the courts.
I can see no reason, indeed I think the reverse is true, that that should be so. All that we believe when we speak of freedom and justice should not be denied to any citizen, any individual or any person in this country. .There should be granted to every one the full extent of the rights that we ourselves have had to the full, and the free right of recourse to the courts for the protection of their position; for the protection from arbitrary decisions, and the protection from injustice should be granted to 'these people. I am quite certain that if the free opinion of this house were sought every hon. member as a good Canadian would feel that the Indians must be given that right, that there is no longer any justification for denying them that right in the fullest and freest measure.
After all it is a truism, as has been said by other speakers in other years, that when it comes to a time when the survival of the country is in danger we call upon the Indian without differentiation or discrimination to join our armed forces. We all know of the wonderful contribution made by these people in the last two wars. We did not ask them to accept a lesser degree of danger or a lesser degree of responsibility or to serve in any way in a different manner from the manner in which the white soldier served.
I can see no reason why simple justice should not be granted now to these people.
I can see no reason why they should be asked when they are out of uniform to accept a lesser status with respect to that most fundamental of rights, the right of recourse to the courts. I should think that very probably no differentiation is being made now with respect to appeals for enlistment in the forces now appearing in the papers and being read everywhere we turn. I do not imagine that it is being suggested that the Indians of this country should refrain from enlisting or that they take any lesser interest in the preservation of the freedom of this nation than the rest of us. Having put that appeal before them on that basis, surely they are

entitled without further delay to having included in the bill which will follow the passage of this resolution the right of recourse to the courts.
Another matter which I submit should be dealt with adequately in the legislation to be introduced is the question of education. Not knowing the provisions of the legislation it is not possible, and probably it would not be wise at this time to attempt to discuss that in detail. Representations have been made on the subject. I have had correspondence with the minister, and I hope I can say without offence, because I know how busy he has been with this and the other matters of his department, that I am still hopeful that the matters about which I wrote him in this connection are receiving his consideration, although I am not actually certain on that point. The minister will know what I mean.
With respect to education, I feel that the legislation must preserve and underwrite the principle that no Indian shall be compelled to attend any school other than that of his denominational choice, and he should not be compelled by direct or indirect means, whether it be by direct enactment of the bill or by some agreement or understanding with any other authority in Canada. I believe that the bill should protect the right of the Indian to an education in the school of his choice.
Another matter which I think must be clarified in the legislation, because I found it was a matter of great concern to the Indians at the meeting I attended just before coming here, is the question of how far they are to give up or be in danger of losing their rights as Indians, which have been guaranteed to them, if they accept the franchise. I am by no means satisfied that the giving of rights enjoyed by white citizens need necessarily involve the depriving of the Indians of the rights which have been traditionally theirs. Their position is simply that they did not ask to be put on reserves. They are not there as a matter of their original choice. This was their country and the white settlers came. It was the white settlers who set up the reserves and, let us use plain language, confined the Indians to them. As a sop, if you like, to the conscience of the white people the Indians were told:	In return for taking your land
from you we will give you certain inalienable rights which you will enjoy as Indians on these reserves.
The Indian simply cannot see-and I think he has right on his side-why now when we say, as we should say, that we wish to give him certain rights that we enjoy, and which he hitherto has been denied, he should as a necessary part of that process lose the rights guaranteed to him when he was first
Indian Act
placed by our act on the reserve. I think the bill should clarify that point and make it clear to the Indian that in accepting these privileges of citizenship in our society he does not lose the rights and privileges which he has hitherto enjoyed.
To bring to a close this portion of my remarks, I simply wish to lay before the minister and the house certain considerations which the Indians asked me, at the meeting I have referred to, to bring here on their behalf. First, they object to any preservation of the principle whereby, as has been the case in the past, decisions of the band council on matters affecting the band where the council is entitled to take such decisions have been subject to veto of the Indian agent. That is a denial of the very system of selfgovernment, and if we wish-and I think we do sincerely-to assist the Indian to become a full citizen and to take part in all the procedures and machinery of government, then it is surely not a sound beginning on that course to say:	You cannot even have
self-government in your own band because when you take a decision it is liable to veto by the Indian agent.
They also wish to have an end of the principle that there shall be no appeal from any decision so taken by the Indian agent in that regard or decisions in other respects by the Indian agent except to the minister. I have referred previously in my remarks to my belief that they must be given the right of full and free recourse to the courts. They themselves put it that they wish to have an end of this principle of appeals from these decisions being limited to an appeal to the minister. They wish that the whole bill should incorporate the principle of self-determination with respect to their own affairs on their own reserves. The brief which they wrote and gave to me reads as follows:
1.	We unanimously oppose bill 267 in its present form and we insist that it must not be passed in parliament in Ottawa.
2.	That Indians in the province of B.C. have the handling of their own affairs so that the fears of the treaty Indians shall not be a bar to the advancement of the non-treaty Indians in British Columbia.
3.	That a better system be maintained in the promotion of agriculture, the culture of fruit, the raising and breeding of good stock by the agriculture supervisor for the Department of Indian Affairs.
Then there are two local matters with which I shall not detain the house by discussing them in detail now. We can perhaps deal with them better in committee on the bill. The brief continues:
4.	That we Indians living in the dry belt in the interior of British Columbia urgently request that our water rights be restored to us, which were given by the crown at the time of the allotment of all Indian reserves in the province of British Columbia.

Indian Act
5.	That all Indian reserve boundary lines be placed back in their original position in so far as they have been removed and some reserve land taken by whites without the knowledge or consent of the owners.
The minister has said that he has asked certain Indians to come here to consider the matter, and I sincerely hope that they will be given ample time to consider the bill before it is proceeded with further after its introduction in the house. While it is not always profitable to refer to what has happened in the past, it is fair to say that the Indians were not given a proper opportunity to consider the legislation in detail after Bill 267 was first introduced and before it was proceeded with on second reading at the 1950 session. I need only remind the minister that he appeared at first to be insistent on putting the bill through in spite of the objections that were made that the Indians had not had a fair opportunity to consider it.
For one reason or another-I think probably because of his sense of fairness which eventually came to the fore-when it was demonstrated to him that was the fact he changed his mind. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that on June 21 when the matter came up for second reading the minister took the position that second reading must be proceeded with, although we asked repeatedly that the bill be withdrawn to give an opportunity for further study. On that day at about ten minutes to eleven at night, as I recall, I moved an amendment to second reading, namely, that the bill be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence. My amendment was not designed to object specifically to any portion of the bill but merely to give some opportunity for expression of opinion that the bill should not be proceeded with simply on the ground that sufficient time had not been given for its consideration. Hansard reports that the house divided on the amendment which was negatived on division, 39 to 90. On that occasion only two members on the government side voted in support of the amendment. That night the minister indicated his intention to proceed with the bill as the first order of business the next day. Some time between eleven o'clock that night and the opening of the session the next day, however, that decision was reversed; the bill was not proceeded with, and was dropped at the end of the session of 1950.
I mention this instance, Mr. Speaker, because it shows there is a right way and a wrong way of doing things. As the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) has 
said, the Indian Act is not amended so frequently that we can afford to take this amending bill lightly. The minister himself has told us that the Indian Act has been amended only some fourteen times in over fifty years, not a history of very rapid progress. Now this parliament has the opportunity to enact a real charter of rights for the Indians of this country. Parliament would not be fulfilling its responsibility either to the white people or to the Indians if it enacted a measure which did not do justice to the merits and needs of the Indians. We cannot do that justice unless we know the views of the Indians themselves. If we are sincere in our desire that they shall now embark upon a course which will qualify them for full citizenship, as I believe we are, surely one of the first steps is to ask them what they want and what they think would be the proper course to bring about that result. After all, they know themselves better than we know them. Therefore we cannot proceed with any haste between the introduction and first reading of this bill and the time it comes up for second reading.
So I ask the minister if he will give us the assurance during this debate at the resolution stage that this bill will be allowed to remain on the order paper for an adequate time before he proceeds with second reading-and I hope he will mention a minimum time-so that not only the Indians who are here may consider it, but so that hon. members may obtain the opinions and advice of the Indians in their own districts.


Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, as yet we do not know anything about the terms of the new legislation, but we do know something about the bill which was withdrawn last year. It had plenty of room, I think, for a good many changes and improvements. Summing up the whole question of what was the matter with it, I believe the trouble is that the government treats the Indian like a child but expects him to act like an adult. In some cases, certainly along the Mackenzie, when these people were given the right to vote a couple of years ago, they had no preliminary training as far as I know in citizenship itself, only half were able to speak the English language, and only a very small fraction could write in any language.
My main purpose in rising today is to express certain ideas I have in regard to the education of Indian children. There is no difference between educating an Indian child and educating what we call a white child, except that their circumstances and environment are different and they are brought up

under different conditions. I want to add a word of commendation to the minister on the improvement of those conditions over the last number of years.
I hold several ideas, which I think are held by the Indians themselves. The first is that the Indians want to see education divorced from the churches. Let me make myself perfectly clear. I admit immediately that the churches have done marvellous work, particularly in the north, and that without that pioneer work the northern Indians would be largely pagan and unlettered. But just as the time arrived in our own system of education when the greater part of the functions had to be taken over from the churches by the state, so I think the time has now arrived when we should introduce into our system of Indian education the same type of public schools we ourselves have. In pioneer days not only education but medicine and many other things were part of the work of the missionaries. The Indian, I think, feels the time has come for the government to take over a good many of those functions which the missionary was asked to perform but which I do not think are in the sphere of the church.
Here I want to pay tribute to the work of the residential schools; but in many parts of the country the Indians are asking for public schools, and that those schools be in their own settlement. I think there is a valid argument for that point of view. Many Indian children living at home are being given no schooling at all. The education of Indian children in the Northwest Territories is directly the business of this parliament, so this is one debate on education when this matter of provincial autonomy, which shows itself in every discussion of the kind in this house, will not be dragged in. In those territories this government is responsible; both the government public schools and the denominational day schools are maintained directly from the exchequer of this country.
In the early days any education obtained by the Indians, and indeed by the white people, was acquired at the mission. The teaching was done voluntarily, as an act of charity. Later small grants were given by the government and books and certain simple equipment were provided. In recent years I believe the government has been paying practically all the costs of these mission day schools, except the cost of the buildings themselves and their maintenance. Now there is a demand for public schools. If what the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) says is correct-and I am not saying whether or not it is-and the primary object of the
Indian Act
church sponsors is not always simply education in the ordinary sense, then the government is subsidizing denominationalism at least to some extent.
The problem is how education may be best brought to the Indian child. I believe it should be brought to him and not that he should be brought to it. How are we best to introduce the world to these children in the development of their bodies, their minds and their intellects through the media of science, literature, history and such handwork as we think may be best adapted for them? The development of skills and handwork, I believe, should be an important part of the education of these people, who are accustomed to use their hands and who are used to living in the open spaces. Such an education would aid Indian children in their enjoyment of life, and their ability to be independent in earning a living.
I have said that, when introduced to our civilization, the Indian young people seemed to pick out the worst things. Someone has talked about the young men hanging around the poolrooms and such places. It would seem to me that our task would be to give them a taste for the first-rate things. There is no way that can be acquired unless they are somehow or other brought into contact with those things. At this point I should like to offer some general principles, ideas or suggestions.
I believe that statistics show, although I have not the statistics with me, an increase in the number of day schools. I am in favour of this. One great advantage of the day school to my mind is that the child is in touch with his parents and his home, at the same time as he is with education. I think my argument is sound when I say that the child, being educated at a day school and going home nightly, has as much effect upon the parents and the home as the educational institution has upon the child himself. In that regard I believe the day school is far superior to the residential school. The danger of the residential school is that the child is taken seventy-five or a hundred miles, whatever the distance may be, away from his home and, for the time being, seems to enter a foreign country in which things are altogether different. He does not see the application of those ways to his own way of life or to the manner in which his parents earn their livelihood. He is in that foreign land until he leaves it to return to the land of his birth. Then, he simply throws up the whole thing and says there is no use in trying to adapt new ways to the old mode of life. He again becomes immersed in the habits in which he was brought up from early childhood.

Indian Act
May I say that habits of health and sanitation are two of the things that come immediately to my mind in that regard. On the other hand, if a child is going back and forth to his own home while he is in contact with these other rules of health and other methods of sanitation, he becomes a missionary for those better ways of life.
The attendance of Indian children at school should commence at the same age as the attendance of white children, if the schools are available to them. I believe I know something about the psychology of teaching young people, and to my mind one of the greatest tragedies I see in the residential schools throughout the country is to find a boy at an advanced chronological age doing the simple work of the primary grades. It is something in which they have no interest. I say it is a tragedy, and I mean just that. The Indian children will have to start school at the same age as we start our own children, at the stage where the chronological age, may I say, fits ,he social surroundings. I believe that my neaning at least is clear, even if the term is rot perhaps the most suitable. We have that sort of tragedy in schools other than Indian schools but it is found often in Indian schools, because when these children have to be sent away from home the parents are not willing to allow them to go until they are past the age at which we send our children to school.
The system of education, whatever it is, of Indian children has not been too successful in the past, even if I have granted that it is on the mend. This is a sad reflection on our education of the Indians. In 1945 only 71 Indian children were registered in Grade IX. It is true that there were 219 in 1949, and that is an improvement, but that is very few for the whole of Canada. I am speaking now, of course, of high school education. In that same year, 1949, only 65 children were enrolled in the three grades X, XI and XII. I have no figures as to whether they were successful in those courses, but at least they were enrolled in them.
The residential schools, in which most of these people in high school grades were enrolled, are not as efficient as they might be. The main reason for this is lack of funds. Too many children, for example, who are attending these schools are paying for their education, in many cases in the form of work. I have no fault to find with work. Work is a part of a person's education; I believe those children should be allowed to work, but- note this-only when that work is a part of the educational process. Where you have children in a boarding school away from their parents and there is a lot of work to be done around. the school farm, there is room for abuse. The temptation is to allow those

children to get on with the job of making the place nice, cultivating the garden and so on, so that when the inspector comes everything will look well. As I say, there is room for abuse in that system.
Another thing I have noticed about the Indian schools is the lack of playground equipment. These Indian children take naturally to sports, and sports could be used as a medium for their instruction, for moral uplift and for inculcating in them a sense of fair play and honesty. It could be used to teach them to be modest winners and good losers. For some of these ideas which I have expressed, I am indebted to Dr. S. R. Laycock, who is a prominent educationist and psychologist in my own province. He is nationally known, indeed internationally. In 1950 he was chairman of the school and education committee of the Canadian home and school and parent-teacher federation. This organization presented a brief, I believe to this government but at least to the minister, over Dr. Laycock's signature. The brief was dated November, 1950, and recommends many valuable things. I should like to conclude my speech by putting those recommendations on the record of this house where they may be available for all the members to study. The recommendations are as follows:
1.	That the federal government increase the funds available for the building of schools among the Indian people and the proper conduct and maintenance of these schools. This is in accordance with the recommendation of the former director of Indian affairs. Mr. Hoey, who, we understand, recommended to the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons that a minimum sum of twenty-five millions annually for twenty to twenty-five years would be necessary to rehabilitate the Indian.
2.	That whereas it requires $300 a year adequately to feed and house a child in a residential school, and whereas Indian children are entitled to as good care as other children in Canada, the federal government increase the annual per capita grant to all residential schools for Indian children to at least $300 per child and exercise such supervision as will ensure that the total grant so made is used for its intended purpose.
3.	That provision be made to provide adequate facilities for manual arts and home economics in the Indian day schools.
4.	That adequate playground equipment be provided for all Indian schools.
5.	That the Indian Affairs Department instruct its branch in each province to obtain from the provincial federations of home and school or parent-teacher associations, literature concerning the aims of home and school or parent-teacher associations and to forward copies to interested parents of children in Indian schools and that all authorities of the Indian Affairs branch be instructed to encourage the formation of home and school associations in Indian schools.
I submit these recommendations, Mr. Speaker, to the consideration of the minister and of the hon. members and of the government.

Indian Act


Mr. J. A. Simmons (Yukon-Mackenzie River):: I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the minister on taking early action in this session to bring down this important legislation. I may say it is somewhat disappointing to many of us that it was not possible to proceed with the bill introduced at the last session, but no doubt the delay will prove helpful, in that it has provided wide opportunity to the Indians themselves to make further representations, and to others interested in the subject to submit their views on what might be done by legislation to improve the lot of our Indian people.
It was in 1946 that the parliamentary committee, composed of some thirty-two members of the House of Commons and of the other place, was set up to study the existing Indian Act. This committee laboured for three years, during which representative Indians from across Canada, and representatives of religious denominations and other groups interested in Indian administration, were called to give evidence.
The various parties of the house were well represented on this committee. I should say that those of us who have perused the reports of the proceedings of the committee could not help but be impressed with the magnitude of the task performed, and the sincere and painstaking efforts taken to meet, to the fullest possible extent, the responsibility placed on its members to set up the framework of a new and better Indian Act.
There are, in the riding I have the honour to represent, over 5,000 Indians, and like my colleagues from the Cariboo and Skeena I am greatly interested in the proposed bill.
It is not likely of course that this measure will find favour in the eyes of all the Indians of Canada, nor yet be satisfactory in every way to all those interested in Indian affairs. No legislation of such scope and magnitude ever does. I should say, however, that to me it does represent a sincere and honest effort on the part of government to improve the Indian Act.
There has been a great deal of criticism of the Indian Act, and to some considerable extent, by those who probably never took the time to familiarize themselves with what it contains. In this regard it is interesting to note that there are important groups across Canada who are quite satisfied with the existing Indian Act and do not wish any revisions of any kind made to it; while others will be content with some minor changes.
The proposed measure is no doubt designed to give wider power to the Indian people in the management of their own affairs. It is noted with satisfaction that representations
have been made to have this extend to a greater control of their band funds, the sale of produce and stock, and lease and sale of reserve lands. This would be all to the good. Some of the very objectionable features of the existing statute should be dropped.
I refer particularly to the provision against the collection of band funds to prosecute Indian claims, and to the provision to expropriate Indain lands adjoining a municipality in excess of 8,000 population. No such laws hold against any other racial group in Canada and, consequently, could be held to be of a discriminatory character.
The passage of the proposed legislation, however, will not provide all that is required to improve the lot of the Indian people; for without adequate funds to continue and extend the very commendable program of school construction, housing and other worthwhile projects commenced a few years ago by the Indian department, the new bill will fall far short of what it is intended to accomplish. I will, therefore, be interested to see what provision has been made in the forthcoming estimates to continue these very necessary undertakings.
Surely, when it is possible for this country to extend generous assistance to the underprivileged people of other lands-I am thinking of the Colombo plan, and I have no objection to it whatever-we should be prepared to meet, without hesitation, the needs within our own gates of a people whose roots are very deep in this land of ours, and to whom we have a very heavy responsibility.
There should be no unnecessary restrictions on the school and welfare programs of the Indian department, for there could be no justification for such a move, short of war itself, and especially when one recalls the niggardly treatment of this department in the matter of the provision of funds prior to 1944, which a perusal of the estimates prior to that year discloses.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It was 1945 and 1946.


James Aubrey Simmons: I came within a year,
anyway. As I said at the outset, I am deeply interested in the Indian people of Canada, and particularly those resident in my own riding, which contains the Yukon Territory and the Mackenzie district of the Northwest Territories. It is my responsibility, as a member of this house, to be so interested. I intend to continue to press for those services which are necessary to improve their lot.
The condition of our native population in this area is not a happy one by any means. These people need our sympathetic help to become good and self-reliant Canadians, and much remains to be done. In the northern

Indian Act
areas the widest possible freedom should be given to the Indians in the matter of taking fish and game for food purposes. The Indian is a conservationist by nature, and he will not kill unless necessity demands.
It has been necessary for the Indian people to adapt themselves to the impact of this civilization. In the older parts of Canada this process of adaptation is proceeding successfully and I for one am happy to say that their health and economic situation is improving- perhaps not as much as we would like, but still the tide seems to have turned and the trend is upward.
I am not unmindful of the devoted efforts of the missionaries and public servants in the north; of the splendid work of the doctors and nurses of the Indian health services under the able direction of Dr. Percy Moore, and officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare, and the sympathetic understanding of their many problems by director D. M. MacKay and his efficient and loyal staff.
Much has been done, especially since the second world war, in improving the health of the natives in the north. The establishment of the Charles Camsell hospital at Edmonton gives hope that that dread disease, tuberculosis, may be banished entirely. With the campaign to improve health conditions should go a campaign to improve housing, living conditions and hygiene. Much has also been done in improving educational facilities for the natives in the past few years, and I am mindful of the many fine schools which have been opened in the north in recent years.
These schools should not confine their teaching to the three R's. They should teach trades so that the Indian people can take their rightful place in building the many houses and buildings that will be required; in the greatly expanded mining industry and in operating tractors and machinery used in maintaining and constructing roads, highways, hydro developments and other engineering works and projects that are already built or will be constructed.
In my opinion every endeavour should be made to create employment for them. Many of them are natural-born mechanics and are proud of their already acquired skills. We must not only give them every opportunity to learn these trades but we must give them encouragement and opportunities for employment.
While thinking of the welfare of those natives who should and will take part in the development of our great northland, we should not overlook the welfare of those who for many years to come will continue to depend upon hunting and trapping for a

living. They should be encouraged to husband and develop their resources of game and fur-bearing animals in the same way that a wise farmer tills his farm or a wise rancher develops his herds.
Something should be worked out to afford the native trapper a measure of economic stability and stable prices for his furs, as is given to the farmer for his products, as it is a recognized fact that their economic conditions depend to a large extent upon the fluctuations of the fur market-and this means either hunger or plenty for the native trappers of northern Canada.
Another matter of concern to the native population of my riding is the fact that carpenters and labourers are brought in to the Mackenzie river districts from Edmonton and other large centres by government departments, at great expense, to work on the various projects, when there are already many residents who have the skills and ability and willingness to do the job in hand, and who can do it equally well, if not better, and at much less expense. I trust the departments concerned will discourage this practice and make provision for the employment of local people on northern projects.
I commenced by congratulating the minister upon bringing in this legislation at the present time. I conclude what I have to say by congratulating him again upon the evidence we have had of his keen and kindly interest in the Indians of Canada which, indeed, augurs well for their administration under his guidance.


Mr. G. F. Higgins (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this resolution I shall not attempt to emulate the eloquence of the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) in either the length or the quality of my remarks. I propose chiefly to refer to the matter of education as it affects the Indians.
Before doing so however I would preface my remarks by stating that we have not many Indians in Newfoundland. I believe they number less than a thousand in all, and that they are situated chiefly in the ridings of Grand Falls-White Bay and Burin-Burgeo. The original inhabitants of the country, the Beothuks, have now been completely killed off by the original white settlers. The few tribes remaining are the Montagnais and the Micmacs. I believe they came from the mainland.
In this connection I should like to bring to the attention of the minister an article which appeared in our local press in Newfoundland when this matter was under discussion last year. This article from the

Evening Telegram of St John's is dated at Ottawa, March 25, and states:
Newfoundland will continue to take care of the Labrador Indians and Eskimos, but will do so at federal expense, for education, relief and social services, it was reported here today.
Representatives of the Labrador area, Messrs. T. G. W. Ashbourne-
The hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay.
-and Mr. Horwood-
The provincial member for Labrador.
-have been trying to have the federal government take over the care of the Labrador natives for some months now. Failing that, they have asked for a per capita grant to the provincial government to take care of the Indians and Eskimos.
The present arrangement has been made, it is understood, because there are so few natives in Labrador that the federal Indian affairs branch didn't feel justified in setting up special administration facilities to take care of them.
Just how Newfoundland will be compensated for the care of education, relief and social services for the Labradorians is presently unknown, but it is felt that some scheme like Messrs. Ashbourne and Horwood's per capita grant will have to be worked out.
According to a Canadian Press message from Ottawa the government has decided against "the retrograde step" of putting the Indians of Newfoundland on the same restricted citizenship basis as the other Indians of Canada by bringing them under federal legislation.
That means, a Senate committee was told today, that the newest province continues to be the only one in which the Indians-200 to 300 members of the Micmac tribe-have the same citizenship status and privileges as the white man.
The information came from D. M. MacKay, head of the Indian affairs branch of the new Department of Citizenship and Immigration and one of a number of departmental officials to testify before a committee studying their estimates.
Mr. MacKay's evidence about the Indians of Newfoundland brought congratulations for that province from Senator Reid. He thought it was a good thing.
Senator Cairine Wilson (L-Ontario), chairman, said full citizenship for Indians is the objective set for all Canada by Prime Minister St. Laurent.
Mr. MacKay said it was hoped Newfoundland provides another example in Indian life.
In connection with this same matter I should like to quote an article which appeared in the Guardian of April 1, 1950. I am not sure where this newspaper is published, but I believe it is published in Charlottetown, in the constituency of the hon. member for Queens (Mr. McLure). This reads:
The education of Indians in Labrador is being left in the hands of the Newfoundland government with the federal government footing the bills as well as those for relief and social services. Colonel D. M. MacKay, director of the Indian affairs branch, has explained to a Senate committee that Indians in Newfoundland have the same citizenship status and privileges as white Canadians, and that the government does not propose the "retrograde step'' of bringing them under paternal federal legislation. The decision is a wise and just one, as is the proposal to grant full citizenship rights to Indians in
Indian Act
the other provinces. The existing situation is certainly not one of which this country can be proud. That the descendants of original inhabitants should be treated as being children all their lives shows small regard for their capacity to run their own lives and operates to make it almost impossible for these people to develop their natural abilities. It would seem, according to Colonel MacKay's statements, that the position is worse in the mari-times than the other provinces. At least in the rest of the country it is not the policy of the government to segregate the children in the schools. How such a policy came to be adopted in the maritimes is not very clear, but the sooner it is reversed the better. Probably no better solution could be found for this particular problem than assimilating the younger generation into the general provincial school system although it is a federal obligation to provide ways and means.
I hope that the arrangement with Newfoundland, referred to in both these articles and the one in which the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay (Mr. Ashbourne) has taken such an interest, will be continued in Newfoundland in the future. It has worked very satisfactorily. I understand that the federal government provides the money and the provincial government undertakes to look after the services for the Indians and Eskimos. Certainly, in so far as the educational system of the province is concerned, it meets fully the requirements of the terms of union.
As I said at the start, I am going to be brief and on the general resolution I shall confine my remarks to a few words with respect to education. I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) in what he has said on this subject and to say quite definitely that in my opinion there should be written into the new bill, if it is not already there, a guarantee that there will be freedom for each denomination in its endeavours toward spiritual achievements, and freedom of conscience of the individual for whom religious instructions are intended.
I understand that under the present act these questions are taken care of by ensuring that the schools shall be denominational in character and with the further stipulation that the Indian child shall receive education in the institution of his religious belief. I understand that the previous act provides for the creation of schools having religious characteristics similar to those of the children attending the school. I submit that the proposed bill should guarantee the right to establish denominational schools.
I believe that the minister received the latter part of last year a brief from the Canadian Catholic conference on this subject and I hope he has given this matter proper consideration in the drafting of the proposed bill.


Mr. W. J. Browne (SI. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all hon. members are

Indian Act
anxious to do what is best for the material and social welfare of the Indians, and I believe they are also interested in the intellectual welfare of the Indians, but so far no one has spoken in support of the spiritual welfare of the Indians. I have heard some criticism of the manner in which that has been carried out. I had not intended to speak until I heard the astonishing remarks of the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) to the effect that the Indians wish to have education divorced from the church. I question that. For whom was he speaking? Has he taken a plebiscite of the Indians across Canada to find out if that is their sentiment, or is he speaking for only a small group?
If we look over the history of this country 1 think we will find that the Indians owe a great debt of gratitude to the missionaries right from the early days when Champlain came here-the missionaries were here before him-the days of the Franciscans who left this country to go to southern California. In that part of the continent they found the lowest grade of Indians on the face of the earth and trained them in the arts of civilization and built up those wonderful missions known as the jewels of the rosary of Junipero Serra and which stretch from San Diego to San Francisco up along the California coast.
Anyone who is familiar with the duties of missionaries knows of their self-sacrifice, their devotion, and the hardships that they suffer from the moment they enter upon their missions; the loneliness they have to put up with, and the long distances they have to travel, and they certainly will recognize the debt of gratitude that the Indians owe to these self-sacrificing and devoted missionaries.
The Franciscans left Canada to go to southern California while the Jesuits left southern California to come to Canada. It seemed to be a good exchange. The first Jesuit missionaries to come to Canada included those remarkable men who, by their long-suffering, their patience, their perseverance, their devotion and finally their martyrdom, showed that they were ready to do a great service for all who came after them as well as for the Indians whom they served. For eight years they lived amongst the Indians in Huronia without making a single convert, and always with the fear of a hatchet landing on their heads and taking their lives. One of them, Father Isaac Jogues, after suffering great cruelties, escaped to France to come back again and suffer martyrdom at the hands of the Iroquois across lake Ontario. It seems to me that the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) has spoken without thinking of the historical aspect and of the great contribution which missionaries from those (Mr. Browne (St. John's West).)
early days up to the present time have made to the lives of the Indians of Canada. He states that the missionaries used to teach and give a little medical service. That is certainly the most inadequate and unjust summary of the duties of a missionary that I have ever heard. He said they should be replaced by public schools, that a time came for all of us when teaching by missionaries, i.e., by religious, was done away with and replaced by public schools.
I do not agree with that statement. I contest it. What is the purpose of education? Is it to make man possess a lot of knowledge of facts that he can get out of encyclopaedias? Is he to forget the true purpose of life? Missionaries are concerned with that aspect. They are concerned with more than the material or even intellectual advancement of their charges. They are concerned with the spiritual and moral purpose of life, and we should all be concerned with that. Although some people may honestly feel that the public school system of education is better, I think it will be found in the long run that the system of education that stresses the spiritual side of life is preferable.


Mr. Shaw:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


William Joseph Browne: Yes.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Since we are discussing Indians, do you believe that they should have the choice between denominational and public schools?


William Joseph Browne: It is not the
Indian adults who go to school; it is the Indian children. That raises a question which I do not propose to enter into at the present moment. I know little of the modern conditions existing among the Indians of this country. I have not seen many of them for a long time. I remember the Indian reservation at Fort William and the one north of Peterborough. I recall the reputation they had at that time, and what I saw at Fort William showed that the government was certainly neglecting them.
The hon. member also made a statement- and it only has to do with Indians indirectly- that education was not in the sphere of the church. That is the chief function of the church. That is the very reason for its existence-to teach people the proper way to live. Why did God make man, and so forth? We must not forget such things. When we open our daily sessions we say prayers, and yet we want to divorce religious training from the education of the Indians.
As I have said, by their self-sacrifice, devotion, courage and perseverance the missionaries have shown that they are the best

friends the Indians have. Sitting in our comfortable quarters we are apt to forget the terrible hardships and anguish that missionaries have to undergo, not only in the more prosperous places such as southern Alberta but also in northern Labrador and the Yukon, places where the Indians are sometimes scattered over hundreds of miles. The missionary who goes amongst them has many problems, the duties of finding schools and teachers, building churches, and teaching religion as well as the problem of transport, and, sometimes, the problem of getting in touch with the member of parliament and the department in order to get things done.
The Indians have shown that they could survive persecution by those who were not missionaries, by the same type of man from whom public school teachers have been drawn, by laymen. They have survived persecution, enslavement, massacre, despoilment and neglect. I believe in the past five or six years more progress has been made in the methods of teaching than had been made for a long time before. I had the privilege of speaking to one of the teachers in an Indian school recently, and at the time I went as fully as I could into the matter. He told me that Indian boys and girls are just as bright as white boys and girls, and that they have done wonderful things in sports. They are better athletes than white children. I am referring particularly to the school at Spanish where there are 175 boys. I believe that is on Georgian bay. The boys and the teachers have built the school. It is a splendid structure. They spend a certain time studying and a certain time at manual labour.
The hon. member for Saskatoon said that a few years ago there were only about ninety in grade IX throughout the whole of Canada. Here there are 175 in one school, and there are two schools at Spanish. This year I believe there were twelve who matriculated in grade XII, and some of them went on to Loyola university at Montreal. I believe it is a very successful project. I was surprised to find that the missionaries receive no salaries. They are teaching there and are not receiving any salaries. I believe if the government will maintain the same interest that the minister now seems to be showing in the Indians, and will conduct research into the Indian problem, the Indians will advance, become happier and more prosperous, and the people of Canada will have reason to be proud of the manner in which they treat the Indians.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.
Indian Act


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is the minister in a position to give the committee an approximate indication of how long he thinks he will be able to allow the bill to stand between first and second readings?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, the business of the house of course is not confined to the Indian bill. We hope that the session will not last too long before we prorogue, and it may be necessary to take the bill at any time and deal with it. The Indians who are here will be considering the bill until the end of this week. If they are able to reach a conclusion about it by that time it may be that some of the points my hon. friend has mentioned will be cleared up in his mind. I should not think that there would then be any objection to having second reading reasonably soon. Having in mind the fact that all comments on Bill 267 were received last fall, and second, that with perhaps a few very minor changes the bill to be presented does not introduce anything new that was not in Bill 267 but is in fact an improvement upon it, I should think the objections to the new bill will be limited in number compared with the objections to Bill 267. Therefore it might help the house to adopt the suggestion made by the hon. member for Selkirk yesterday, when he asked if it was our intention to have a special committee. If it were thought that this would help we would be quite prepared to recommend it to the house. If we do that, however, it would be desirable to have second reading reasonably soon, so the committee could get on with it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I appreciate the attitude the minister has just displayed, particularly his willingness1 to consider a special committee. I am a little disappointed, however, in the suggestion that he would hope to proceed with second reading perhaps within a week or two. I point out that although it is a fact that the minister has received the replies to which he referred earlier from the organizations that made representations on Bill 267, it is also a fact that many of the Indians were not adequately consulted concerning that bill. As I see it, the reason for that is twofold. In the first place, and I state this as a fact without any intention of condemning anyone, the organization itself is by no means as perfect as the Indians themselves would like. I am sure they would agree with that statement. No organization ever is as perfect as its members would like. Owing to the difficulties of geography, terrain, communication and so on, I am sure even their own organization would verify the statement that quite a large number of Indians by the very nature of things did not actually have an opportunity to express an opinion with regard to this bill

Indian Act
I can also state as a fact, from my own experience at the meetings to which I have referred, that those Indians had not seen a copy of Bill 267. A very limited number had received two mimeographed sheets put out by the department to serve as a basis for discussion, but very few had seen even those. While those sheets would serve as a basis for discussion they did not purport, as I understand it-and if they did I would say they failed-to be a full or thorough analysis of all the effects of Bill 267. So the situation with which we are confronted is that large numbers of Indians have not had adequate opportunity to consider Bill 267, and it is going to take some time for the members here to acquaint the Indians in their own districts with the effects of the new legislation. So I would urge the minister to considerably enlarge his concept of the period which might transpire before second reading is moved. I appreciate and to some extent join with him in the hope that this session will not be unduly prolonged, but experience has shown that very rarely is a session over before June. That leaves us another three months, at least, and I should think he might quite easily contemplate a period of six weeks or two months before proceeding with second reading.


Walter Edward Harris: I am rather surprised at what the hon. member has said about the Indians not having seen the bill. It was distributed in June of last year, and we repeatedly reminded the Indians that they might consider it. The bill was made available to every agency and, as far as I am informed, to every band. There were certain difficulties, of course. Some bands refused to consider the bill unless the Indian agent was present. There had been criticism in this house, and the opinion had been expressed that the Indian agent should not be present in order that the Indians might feel free to carry on a full discussion. We overcame those difficulties, and I think it can be said that every band council and every Indian interested has had an opportunity to consider the bill, and has had that opportunity since late summer or early fall. I doubt that there are more than a few Indians in Canada who are not fairly well informed on the bill, and I am also of the opinion that members of the house are fairly well informed as well.
I do not want to suggest that we should have second reading in another week; that depends on a great many other factors having to do with the order of business in this house. Nevertheless to wait six weeks, as my hon. friend suggests, undoubtedly would mean that

the committee would have to hurry to complete its work at the end of the session.


William Scottie Bryce: I want to let the minister know I appreciate the consideration he gave my suggestion about setting up a committee. I have just one further suggestion to make. If the government decides to set up this committee again, I think a useful purpose would be served if that committee as well as your department could hear the Indians before they went back home.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to know from the minister how many representatives of Indian associations and tribes across Canada are being brought here to confer with him concerning the bill which is being preceded by this resolution.


Walter Edward Harris: There are
eighteen Indians and one white man, who is the secretary of an Indian association. There are four from British Columbia, two from Alberta, three from Saskatchewan, two from Manitoba, five from Ontario, two from Quebec and one from the maritimes. They represent all the known organizations of Indians and in some cases are representatives chosen by the larger bands in the larger centres. To the extent that any group can be called representative, I think they are representative of Indian opinion. I should be happy to adopt the suggestion of my hon. friend for Selkirk if the house would give this bill second reading tomorrow. Then there would be ample opportunity to set up the committee which could hear the Indians who will be here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We do not need to wait until the bill is given second reading to appoint a special committee.


Walter Edward Harris: If my hon. friend could suggest a way of referring a bill to a special committee without having it approved in principle by the house, we would give consideration to it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let me make myself clear. I said you did not have to wait- until the bill was given second reading to set up a committee. It is perfectly true that the bill could not be referred to the committee until it had been given second reading, but there is no reason why the committee could not be organized with terms of reference which would enable it to hear the Indians while they are here.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On that point, in the last three or four years we have had several instances in which similar questions have arisen. A bill has been given first reading and it was considered desirable to have it

considered by a committee before second reading. In that case a motion was adopted referring the subject matter of the bill to the committee for consideration.


Mr. SI. Laurent:: And that put an end to the bill.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The case I remember particularly was the legislation having to do with reinstatement in civil employment. The Minister of Labour was moving for second reading, but in view of the expression of opinion in the house he agreed that this action should be taken and the subject matter of the bill was referred to the veterans affairs committee. That committee reported as to what would be suitable legislation to deal with the subject matter of the bill, and that draft legislation was enacted by parliament at the same session.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It required the introduction of a new bill. It is quite clear that the reference of the subject matter of a bill to a committee takes that bill off the order paper. If the committee recommends legislation a new bill has to be introduced, containing the recommendations of the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I agree with the Prime
Minister as to what would happen if an attempt were made to refer the subject matter of the bill to a committee. The question raised by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, however, is how such a committee could meet these Indian representatives while they are here if perchance the house is not prepared to give the bill second reading for some time. I would remind the minister of what is done in connection with the committee on external affairs. Certain estimates are referred to that committee, and on the basis of those estimates they enter into a wide discussion of external affairs. It is quite simple, if the government wants to do it, to set it up now, by giving notice before six o'clock of an order for a special committee on Indian affairs. Then by motion of the Prime Minister one item in the estimates, the item of administration, could be referred to that committee. In discussing that item the committee would have the power to call for persons and papers. I believe we all appreciate the fact that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has indicated favourable consideration has been given to the request of the member for Selkirk. We are trying to suggest a way in which it will be possible for the Indian representatives who are here now to appear before that committee.
Indian Act


Edmund Davie Fulton: I might point out further that when the veterans affairs committee was considering the veterans charter it considered legislation that was in draft form. My recollection is that the bills had not been introduced in the house, but were in draft form. A committee, composed of members from all parts of the house, considered the views of the officials as to how the legislation should be framed. Recommendations were made, and many of those recommendations were incorporated in the bills which were then introduced in this house. I mention that to show that committees have sat without specific legislation being referred to them, because in that case there was no legislation. It was merely in draft form in the department. I think that statement, in conjunction with the suggestion made by the member for Winnipeg North Centre, does indicate a proper solution to the difficulty which has been raised, that is of getting this matter before a committee while the Indian representatives are still here.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Neither the Prime Minister nor the minister in charge have indicated that they are going to accede to this request for a special committee, but I would hope that they would do so. There is another alternative, not as good, but it would at least serve part of the purpose of setting up a committee. It would be to arrange for these representatives of the various Indian organizations to meet the members of the House of Commons who would like to hear their views. A room could be made available in which such a meeting could be held, and possibly a reporting staff could be supplied to take minutes of the meeting. I think under any circumstances that the representatives of the Indian associations who are here, as the minister has said, will probably be able to give a good idea of what the Indians as a whole throughout this country desire in this new bill. It would seem to me to be a great pity if these Indian representatives are not given an opportunity of putting their views before the members of this house, either before a special committee or at the meeting which I have suggested could be arranged.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is the minister able to say what Indian organizations from British Columbia are represented?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, I could give all the organizations.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am interested mainly in
British Columbia.

Indian Act


Walter Edward Harris: Dr. Kelly has
been invited from the Haida Indians; Mr. Daniel Manuel from my hon. friend's own riding has been invited to represent the interior Indians; Mr. William Scow, president of the native brotherhood has been invited, and Mr. Andrew Pauli, president of the North American brotherhood.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the minister as to
the nature of the bill itself? In the bill, are there notes as to the changes from Bill No. 267, as well as notes of the amendments and changes from the original Indian Act? If there are not, I should like to ask the minister to give us a summary now of those changes.


Walter Edward Harris: If I tried to tell my hon. friend all the changes it would take quite a long time, and then he would want to read it anyway. The bill is drafted in the same form as Bill No. 267. It refers to the changes from the existing Indian Act. It will not be difficult for my friend to follow the changes between Bill No. 267 and the present bill.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Will the minister indicate
what might be done concerning those two suggestions which have been put forward? Will he make any observations on them?


Walter Edward Harris: I thought I made it clear this afternoon that it was the desire of the government to obtain the opinion of those Indians after first reading of the bill for the purpose of letting the house know later what it was. I think I said we would hope to have the proper amendments as a result of this conference. Now, I hope that that might be the case. Every Indian who is coming here is a member of the public of Canada, and is represented by a member of the house. I am quite sure he would want to pay his respects to his member and to discuss with him the problems of Indian affairs, and through him perhaps make representations.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am quite sure the individual members of this delegation will go around to see some members, and probably some will call on several members, but that is a different thing from having a meeting with them as a group and getting their opinion. The representatives from British Columbia might have certain opinions which might not be shared by the Indians in the maritimes. If these people come to any agreement in their talks with the government, I think it would be of great value to the members of this house to have a meeting with them and hear their opinions.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Is it proposed to continue
the existing arrangement with the provincial

government of Newfoundland for the care of Newfoundland Indians and Eskimos, irrespective of this act?


Walter Edward Harris: It is not intended to take over the administration of Indian affairs in Newfoundland.


Mr.   Baler@: How long will these representatives be kept here? Will it be a few days, a week or how long?


Walter Edward Harris: The original
invitation expressed the hope we could complete the work in three days.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. John Decore (Vegreville) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 75, to incorporate Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited.


Mr. Green:: May we have an explanation
from the sponsor?


John Decore: The powers requested in the
bill, the second reading of which I am now moving, are similar to the powers granted in other bills which have been passed in this house.
Under this bill incorporation is being sought for a gas pipe line company under the Pipe Lines Act, being chapter 20 of the 1949 statutes of Canada.
The bill of course follows the usual standard form of pipe line bills under this act. The purpose of the act is as follows: In view of the tremendous developments of the gas and oil industry in Alberta, certain principles were laid down by the act under which people who were desirous of having an interprovincial or international pipe line constructed would have to come.
As hon. members well know, under the Pipe Lines Act jurisdiction rests with the board of transport commissioners, and although the passing of this bill does not in any way establish a route which this proposed pipe line will follow, as that is within the jurisdiction of the board of transport commissioners, yet I have been authorized to say that the very purpose of this proposed company is to build a gas pipe line from Alberta to Montreal, following an all-Canadian route, and paralleling the main line of the Canadian Pacific railway and of the

Canadian National railway. It will be approximately 2,200 miles long with collecting lines and lateral lines of 900 miles. In view of the type of debates we had on pipe line bills not so very long ago concerning an all-Canadian route I venture to say that some people got certain ideas and that may be the reason why this bill is before this house today.
' The communities that are to be served are as follows: in Saskatchewan, cities and towns along or within reach of the Canadian Pacific railway main line, including Swift Current, Moose Jaw and Regina; in Manitoba, cities and towns along or within reach of the Canadian Pacific railway main line, including Brandon, Souris, Portage la Prairie, Winnipeg and St. Boniface; in Ontario, towns and industries from Kenora to Sudbury, including Fort William and Port Arthur, Steep Rock iron mines and paper mills at Red Rock, Terrace, and Marathon. From Sudbury the line will go south to Toronto, with spur lines west to London, Galt and Kitchener, and on to the depleted gas and oil fields of western Ontario where gas will be pumped into underground storage in summer months. From Toronto the line will go east following the Canadian National railway lakeshore line and serving Oshawa, Kingston, Port Colborne, Brockville, Prescott and Cornwall, with a spur line up to Smiths Falls, Ottawa and Hull. In Quebec, it is proposed to serve the communities along the Canadian National railway route from Coteau Junction to greater Montreal. Ultimately it is hoped, with the increased capacity of the line, to extend it along the north shore of the St Lawrence as far as Quebec city.
There is of course another federal act which exercises control, namely, the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act. However, it is my opinion that this act would have no application, because all consumers will be in Canada and no gas will be exported out of Canada.
The mere fact that this bill should go through does not mean that any gas will be taken out of Alberta without the consent of the provincial government. In 1948 the provincial government of Alberta passed an important act dealing with gas known as an act to provide for the preservation, conservation and effective utilization of the gas resources of Alberta. I am not going to go into the details of this act. I believe that after the bill receives second reading hon. members will have an opportunity to go into it further in the appropriate standing committee.
Alberta's stand, as hon. members are probably aware, is that no natural gas will be taken outside of that province unless the
Trans-Canada Pipe Lines requirements of Alberta have been assured first. Since I come from Alberta, may I say that in that province we are concerned with the development of the gas and oil industry in Alberta. The attitude that the provincial government takes in this matter may be stated in the recent report of the Alberta conservation board and certain recommendations which it makes. These recommendations were made only a few weeks ago. The stand of the premier of the province can be seen in the publication called "Within our Borders", dated February 15, 1951. Although this publication is not official, I think the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) will agree with me that it is almost semiofficial. This is what the premier of the province says:
The government is satisfied that the board has made a thorough and comprehensive investigation into the matter of Alberta's gas reserves and the provincial requirements and concurs in its conclusions and recommendations.
The board finds that Alberta's present established gas reserves are approximately equal to the amount of gas the board estimates is necessary to ensure that the present and future requirements of the province and accordingly recommends that these reserves should be further increased before the export of gas is approved.
The government concurs fully in the board's further conclusion that as quickly as additional reserves are established it will be in the best interests of the people of Alberta to make surplus gas available for sale outside the province in that an export market will:
(a)	Encourage and speed up the development of our petroleum and natural gas reserves.
(b)	Encourage and make possible greater and more rapid industrial development within Alberta.
(c)	Make gas available to Alberta communities which otherwise could not be served.
Then the premier's statement goes on in this way:
It is evident that by carrying out the recommendations of the board's interim report the requirements and interests of the people of Alberta will be fully protected while at the same time we should experience an accelerated exploration and drilling program for natural gas which should result in a surplus of gas for sale outside the province.
Then the premier goes on to say that to facilitate this development the government is amending its gas exploration and leasing regulations along the lines recommended by the board to encourage the more speedy development of our vast gas resources.
In any event this shows the stand taken by Alberta. I suppose we may expect that some other groups will seek incorporation. I hope there will be more people who will do so. We in Alberta would like to find ourselves in a position where there will be competing companies endeavouring to get our surplus gas reserves.
May I point out further that the main transmission line of this proposed company, from

Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Alberta to Toronto, will be a thirty-inch pipe, and from Toronto to Montreal a twenty-four-inch pipe. It is estimated that the cost of this line will be about $250 million. The passing of the bill has important national considerations. To begin with, it is an allCanadian route and, with the total volume of gas consumed in Canada, complete control will be ensured in this country. Secondly, it will make possible the replacement of foreign coal and oil for fuel purposes, thus saving many American dollars each year. Third, it will certainly be of great benefit to Canadian industries along the route.
Since Alberta is emerging as one of the world's great storehouses of gas, which is a valuable fuel and source of quick energy, the aim of this pipe line is to make the exportable surplus of the Alberta gas available to central and eastern Canada, in accordance with the recommendations made by the Dinning commission, and of course also in accordance with the policy of the people of Alberta, to dedicate the wealth of gas in that province first to the needs of the people of the province, secondly to the needs of Canada and, thirdly, for export purposes.
Many of the facts in connection with this proposed company, which I did not mention and some of which I do not even know, could be brought out after second reading, when the bill is referred to the appropriate standing committee.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I support the bill for some very clear reasons. In the first place it is not going through the Fraser valley, Vancouver or the United States. It is an all-Canadian route. Usually those who are putting up the money to pay for a pipe line, or for anything else, have some say in the matter. We are convinced now, by those who are putting up the money, that this will be an all-Canadian route, that it will come from Alberta, and that it will come to Fort William, the hub of Canada. Then it will proceed to Port Arthur, and from there to Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto.
I intend to make only a short speech, because we want this bill to go through in short order. It is a gas bill, but we do not want any more long speeches than are absolutely necessary. We would appreciate criticism, but we believe that this is an opportunity for Canada to have an all-Canadian route, and we will support it.
This company deserves credit. It was pointed out the other day that there was not sufficient gas to encourage these people to go ahead. Well, we see what happened. This company with its engineers went ahead and


discovered seven additional sources of gas- not just one. So there is all kinds of gas to keep this pipe line going.
There is something further involved in connection with the pipe line. It is to follow a railway line, and will not need to be buried deep in the ground. It will require to be buried only 12 or 15 inches, perhaps less, for protection from wild animals or from those people who might want to get a little gas cheaply. Frost will not disturb the gas in the line; in fact it will be an aid to it.
We had a good deal of difficulty when we failed to get the oil pipe line to the lakehead. While at that time the people who were putting up the money had a good deal of say in the matter, they did not have more say than some of the people in the House of Commons who did not know as much about it. This time we are taking no chances. We are going to do our best to have this pipe line allCanadian, and have it go through the lake-head to serve the whole nation.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a great
pleasure this evening to witness the conversion of the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor). Just a few short months ago he was doing his best to prevent us getting a Canada-first gas pipe line through British Columbia. Now however he seems to be sold on the policy of Canada first, and I am very grateful that he has come over to our side, even at this late date. It shows that there is always hope. I would hope, too, that many of his fellow members, who saw as he did last year, will also have seen the light in the intervening months.
I thought this evening that the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Decore) made a very frank and full statement about the routing of the pipe line. That is the kind of information to which members of the House of Commons are entitled, in respect of all these bills seeking to incorporate pipe line companies.
In view of the fact that the pipe line is to serve Canada first, and in fact in this case it will serve Canada only, I for one am very glad to support it. I believe it would be most unfortunate if any effort were made to talk out the bill and, unless in the standing committee we find something unsatisfactory, I shall certainly support it.


Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take up very much of the time of the house and I rise merely to congratulate the hon. member on the excellent way in which he has put this bill through and also to get my hand in

again to be ready for another pipe line bill that is coming before this house. When that bill comes before us I assure you that you will be hearing several forty minute speeches, especially if there is no difference in the form in which it was presented to the other place.
Those of us who took part in the building up of Canada last year without the assistance of certain hon. members, particularly those from British Columbia-I hope they have all seen the error of their ways and will support this bill-are ready to take that course again. My colleague to my left is the only one on this side who did see the error of his ways in time. I want to say to the hon. member that I shall do everything to see that he gets his line through and I shall also do everything in my power to prevent the passage of another bill that provides for a pipe line going first to the United States.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the assurance that has been given by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Decore) that the route followed by the pipe line to be built by the company covered by this bill will be an allCanadian route makes it clear that there will not be an extended debate on this bill as was the experience in connection with certain other pipe line bills in previous sessions. We are glad to have that assurance so far as this company is concerned, for the lack of that assurance was one objectionable feature to which we took exception in certain other cases.
Even at the risk of spoiling the unanimity with which hon. members have been expressing themselves as being ready to give complete approval to this bill I should like to point out there are some of us in this house who regret that the government is not going into the construction of pipe lines for the distribution of gas and oil on a public ownership basis. When I say "some of us" I am happy to include the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson). While he does not belong to this socialist group nevertheless he has taken the same position on former occasions.
Hon. members must realize that there are some things that are natural monopolies, which should not be in the hands of private corporations but rather in the hands of the people through their governments. The particular commodity to be transported by pipe lines, gas and oil, is the type of product that lends itself, in our view, more to a crown corporation than to private interests.
The hon. member for Vegreville said he hoped there would be other companies coming
Trans-Canada Pipe Lines into the field. That takes us back to the old story in the past when competing and paralleling railway lines were built at great cost to the country in materials and manpower. In the end the people of the country have had to pay for that duplication and paralleling of railway lines. It seems clear to us that this is a field into which the government should be entering, either directly or through its own transportation system, the Canadian National Railways.
It is not our intention to block the passing of this bill, but we do feel that the viewpoint I have indicated should be expressed before second reading is given.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I rise simply to deal with one point very briefly. When the province of Alberta decides that it has gas available for this purpose and when this company receives the authority it is seeking I should like to know if it will be in a sufficiently strong position to construct the line? I am assuming that when the bill reaches the committee the committee will satisfy itself that those who are seeking to do this thing will be capable of carrying it out. We should not be placed in the position of having given a great privilege to people who can turn it to their advantage without having the intention or capacity of carrying it out. I raise that point and repeat that I assume that it will be gone into before the committee.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) in welcoming to the penitents' bench the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) and the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Decore). This project seems to be a most admirable one as far as I understand and it should get the support of the house unless, as the hon. member who has just taken his seat has suggested, there are some things which would make it appear that the project will not be completed.
One reason why I like this idea of a pipe line running from Alberta to the central provinces' is that if and when the natural gas in Alberta gives out the pipe line could still be used to supply gas or liquefied fuels to be produced from the coal fields which exist in such vast quantities in Alberta. That would be one means of putting a permanent end to the rather poor position we have been in, particularly in Ontario and Quebec, in our dependence to a large extent for fuel supplies upon the United States. It seems to me that a pipe line of this sort should be useful as long as it lasts in supplying the fuel deficiencies of these provinces.

Criminal Code


Gordon Graydon: I should like to ask the hon. member for Vegreville if it is the intention of this company to service the intervening points between Toronto and Kitchener which he has mentioned?


John Decore: I think that information would be more readily available when the bill reaches the standing committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


Mr. Wilfrid LaCroix (Quebec-Montmorency) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 3, to amend the Criminal Code (subversive activities).
He said:	Mr. Speaker, in presenting this
bill before the opening of the present session my intention was to secure action by the government against subversive political activities in this country. I shall be brief because I do not want to participate in the talking out of this bill. I simply ask my colleagues to allow the bill to be given second reading in order that it may be studied in committee of the whole.
The government will contend that the subject matter of this bill is covered already by the Criminal Code. If such is the case, the matter covered by section 1 of the bill must be covered by section 133 of the Criminal Code which relates to sedition. I claim that the acts I am trying to forbid are special, and that my bill goes much further in prohibiting subversive activities, as nowhere in the code is there any mention of totalitarian dictatorship. In other words, can the minister show me where in the code there is a section making it a criminal offence to try to establish a communistic regime or to participate in such subversive activities? The best proof of that is that the communist party has never been outlawed in the code whereas, according to section 1 of the bill, no one will be allowed to be an active communist. Moreover, it is surely not by taking away the Canadian citizenship of those few foreign-bom communists living in our country after they have been convicted of sedition that we will be able to suppress the communist party in Canada since they will continue to have a legal existence and to spread their propaganda just as any other political party does.
The minister may say in opposition to the bill that it is much better to leave the communist party at liberty until war is declared because, through their mixing with the spies,

the R.C.M.P. would be in a better position to surround and arrest them when war was declared. This seems to me a bit obvious because, according to the report of the R.C.M.P., there are about 15,000 members of the communist party in Canada. In the meantime they will intensify their propaganda and fanaticize their supporters greatly. We must remember that, if war is ever declared, it takes the action of only one or two men to constitute an act of sabotage. Moreover, I submit if the bill is adopted it will not prevent the R.C.M.P. from following their usual course of action.
Are we going to wait for acts of sabotage to be committed to take action under section 133 of the Criminal Code which would then permit the government to act by invoking the sedition that this article of the Criminal Code contemplates? As to the second section of the bill, it is true that section 209 of the Criminal Code makes it a criminal offence to post obscene publications, and that section 207 makes it an offence to print, publish or circulate obscene written matter; but this again is different from printing, publishing and circulating matter with a view to establishing a totalitarian dictatorship in Canada. I should also like the minister to tell me where the broadcasting of matter of the kind I have just mentioned is covered in the code. Furthermore, even if there were some similarity between the provisions of the bill and certain provisions of the Criminal Code-I am unable to find any-should the bill not be passed inasmuch as it would have the double effect of clarifying and strengthening any section of the Criminal Code having a similar purpose?
If the subject matter of the bill is already covered by the code, which I deny, why was it necessary at the beginning of the last war to pass orders in council outlawing the communist party and its affiliates, and forbidding the circulation of communist papers? I refer the minister to section 39C of the defence of Canada regulations, consolidation of 1940.
May I respectfully suggest to the government that any Canadian citizen, whether of Canadian or foreign birth, should be deprived of his political rights upon conviction by the courts of having committed, either in acts or words, treason or subversive activities against our country? As the law now stands, a man duly convicted of subversive activities by the courts may be a candidate in any federal, provincial or municipal election, and has the right to vote or hold a public office. At a time when we are asked to make enormous sacrifices to get rid of communists from the outside, it seems to me that we

should make an effort to get rid of the communists here at home, as I know you will readily admit that it is most ridiculous to allow the communist party to continue its propaganda in Canada, thus indoctrinating its followers to the point where later on they may commit acts of sabotage.
With respect to the financial set-up of the communist party, may I suggest to hon. members that they read an article in the issue of the Financial Post of the 24th of February entitled: "There's Big Money in Communist Business Network". More than $1 million yearly in subscriptions swells the communist party funds emanating either from their co-operatives, stores, insurance and professional business or directly from the Russian government to run their big propaganda and subversive mill. They have a paid staff of 200 organizers, and last year they sent 100 people to Europe and Moscow on various missions. Are you going to stand for that? Of course it is for hon. members of the house to decide.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: I move the adjournment of this debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Fournier (Hull) moves that this debate be now adjourned. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Wilfrid Lacroix: No.
Motion (Mr. Fournier, Hull) agreed to and debate adjourned.



STATUTORY HOLIDAYS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, February 22, consideration in committee of Bill No. 2, an act to amend the Dominion Day Act and Victoria Day Act-Mr. MacDougall- Mr. Dion in the chair.
Oni section 2-Victoria day.
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Next sitting.


An hon. Member:: Next year.


Mr. Cardiff:: Twelve months hence.


Mr. MacDougall moved: the third reading of the bill.
Statutory Holidays


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, if this bill should
become law it will make our national holiday, Dominion day, which has been celebrated in Canada for many generations, a moving holiday; and the same will be true of Victoria day. Unfortunately when this bill came up for second reading the other evening there was no debate whatever. I presume very few hon. members were in their seats at the time; certainly I was not here. In any event the bill did not receive the consideration it merits and I believe it should now be given further consideration by this house; this motion for third reading presents that opportunity.
I am more particularly concerned about Dominion day, July 1. If this bill becomes law Dominion day will be celebrated on July 1 only if that happens to be a Monday. If it should happen to fall on a Tuesday then the holiday will be on Monday, July 7. We shall also be celebrating Dominion day on July 4, the great United States national holiday, just as often as we will celebrate it on July 1. I submit that if this step is taken Dominion day will become merely another week end and will lose most of its significance as a national holiday. It is the only great national holiday Canadians have. Hon. members will recall that on two or perhaps three occasions one hon. member has tried to have the name changed from Dominion day to Canada day. He certainly believed it to be the great Canadian national holiday, and I am sure every member in the house realizes that such is the case.
It seems to me one of the great weaknesses of the Canadian people, perhaps our greatest weakness, is that we pay too little attention to our traditions, our history and those things that make one think of Canada. Here is a holiday the main purpose of which is to help the Canadian people think of their own nation. There are other examples of this weakness of Canadians. There is the matter of a national anthem. I well remember a day or two after the armistice in November, 1918, being with some other Canadians in the crowded town square of Mons. There was

to be a march past of troops of the first army, and while we were all waiting there, with this tremendous crowd around, we heard the music of "O Canada" played on the bells-I have forgotten whether they were the bells in the city hall or in the church. I recall vividly the thrill I felt when I heard that music. We found that the Belgian in charge of the bells had gone to a great deal of trouble to find the music so he could play "O Canada" as a tribute to the men of the Canadian corps.

Statutory Holidays
That was thirty-three years ago; yet in Vancouver today the position is that while we have the melody, no one knows what to sing. We have two versions there. Some clubs sing the Weir version and some the Buchan version. The result is that when "O Canada" is played most people sing "Tiddely-um-tum-tum" for they do not know what words to use. That is just an example. We have the melody; we should decide on the words and adopt them for our national anthem.
Another example is the Canadian flag. As yet we do not have a national flag. The red ensign has been flying on this building for several years because the practice was authorized by order in council. During two sessions of the last parliament a special committee of the Senate and House of Commons considered what Canada's flag should be. They had several thousand designs in the railway committee room; they went to a great deal of trouble, and at the end of the second session brought in a recommendation favouring a flag something like the red ensign but with a smaller union jack in the corner and a maple leaf surrounded by a white border in the fly. That recommendation was almost unanimous; I think only one or two members of the committee voted against it, but nothing was done. The report was never considered by the house and no flag was adopted, so today we find ourselves without a national flag.
Another example was the way we as a people looked upon naturalization. Until a few years ago there was absolutely no ceremony connected with our naturalization procedure. New Canadians were made citizens without any formality, without any welcome, without being required to have any knowledge of our history, our laws or our customs. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) was one of the leaders in having that condition improved and today, certainly in my part of the country, the naturalization procedure is much better. New citizens are welcomed, and there is an entirely different feeling about the whole thing.
Canada incidentally has naturalized far more people than any other nation of the British commonwealth. I believe literally millions of people have acquired citizenship in this nation through naturalization, and we are still getting immigrants. Thousands of them are coming here every year, and we hope there will be thousands more. Surely these new Canadians will expect us to have a day that we treat as a national holiday, not just a week end when we can go away for a picnic. They come from countries that have national holidays. One of the finest ways to impress them with what Canada

means would be for this country to celebrate its national holiday, and celebrate it on the proper day. If this change is adopted we will be bringing uncertainty into our national holiday, and I think that is a very bad thing. This House of Commons should be leading in the direction of encouraging the Canadian people to celebrate their national holiday on July 1. A great deal of fault lies right here in Ottawa, with the members in this chamber and in the other house. We should be giving the people of Canada the lead in celebrating Dominion day on its proper date.


Mr. Ferrie:: Celebrate it on Sunday?


Howard Charles Green: The member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. MacDougall) mentions Sunday.


John Lorne MacDougall: As a matter of fact, I did not. I do not mind being charged with anything that I do say.


Howard Charles Green: Someone has brought up the matter of the holiday falling on Sunday and being celebrated on Monday. This has been the custom for years. We do the same thing for Christmas and New Year's and there has been no criticism. It has been the established practice.
I do want to point out to the supporters of the bill that the late Senator McGeer, as mayor of Vancouver, made it one of his cardinal principles to have a proper celebration on Dominion day. There were many sceptics; people asked who was going to pay any attention to a parade or that sort of program and said no one would go, and that it would turn out to be a fiasco. Well, Mr. McGeer had the courage of his convictions and he arranged for a parade, troops, floats and a very colourful program. To everyone's surprise, the people of Vancouver liked it and turned out by the thousands. There was a wonderful celebration, centred around the fact that the first of July, Dominion day, was Canada's national holiday. I do suggest that we would be doing Canada a greater service if we advocated steps of that kind right across this nation, rather than by changing the date in order to make it just another week end for someone to have a good time.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to delay a vote on this measure.


Mr. Wylie:: We have only five minutes to go.


George Alexander Cruickshank: And that has taken one minute. Mr. Speaker, I do not think we should commit ourselves on this very important question until we have had a report from the Massey commission. I believe they call it the commission on arts, sciences and letters, something of that sort. I have heard it discussed on every measure we wanted to

prolong, except the pipe lines. Let us get that name again. The commission on arts, sciences and letters; that is as I understand it. Whether we are to have television or whether the telephone system is run properly seems to fall under that title. I cannot see why we should not await that report.
I come from probably the most important riding in British Columbia.


Mr. Brown (Essex West):: Question.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Is the hon. member
questioning the fact that it is the most important riding? I shall be glad to explain why it is. I have had no request from my constituents for this change. I am in a privileged position compared with the mover of this resolution, owing to the fact that I can speak with more or less authority concerning two national holidays. Unlike the mover of the resolution, I was born in the United States.


Mr. Sinclair:: A displaced person?


George Alexander Cruickshank: No, I am not a displaced person. I can speak of the fourth of July as well as the first of July. I can imagine what a cry there would be from our great neighbour to the south if anyone suggested they change the fourth of July to any other date. I wonder what some of my friends sitting not far from my right would say if there were a move in the province of Quebec, which has ties with France, to change the fourteenth of July? Some of my colleagues from Quebec might want to make it the twelfth of July.
So far as I am aware there has been no demand from any part of the province of British Columbia for this change. I can say that I am the only candidate who was elected in the province of British Columbia who was officially endorsed by unionized labour in the province of British Columbia. I can tell you what the unions want. They want better living conditions and higher pensions. One of my colleagues, though I do not agree with him, suggests that they want more days without work but with pay. I do not agree with that. They are not particularly worried about this change of the first of July. Now, I am something like the member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green)-


James Sinclair: A lot like him.


George Alexander Cruickshank: My colleague the member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) says "a lot like him". We both served in the same unit overseas. I know I shall try to emulate his example by being elected with as large a majority and for as many years as he has
Farm Improvement Loans been. I cannot guarantee that for some of my colleagues who are not so very far from me.
Since it is nine o'clock, may I adjourn the debate?
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



FARM IMPROVEMENT LOANS


Douglas Charles Abbott: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act, 1944, to extend its operation for a further period of three years and to increase the aggregate amount of farm improvement loans that may be guaranteed.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: There are some questions that I should like to ask, but I do not know that it matters whether I ask them now or in committee.


James Sinclair: I shall make a short statement first, and then I shall give the members an opportunity for questions when we go into committee. The purpose of the bill on which this resolution is founded is to provide that benefits to the agricultural industry of the Farm Improvements Loan Act of 1944 may be extended for a further period of three years from March 1, 1951. The act which was passed, as its title indicates, in 1944 was proclaimed to be in force and effective as from March 1, 1945. It was to continue in effect for three years from that date.
Perhaps for the benefit of members who were not here at that time I should briefly indicate what was the intent and purpose of the act. I believe that is best described in the introductory paragraphs of the annual report for each year since that time. It reads:
The primary purpose of the act was to fill a gap in the credit system which has been developed in Canada to meet the needs of agriculture. That gap related chiefly to the provision of intermediate credit, and certain types of short term credit to farmers, for the improvement and development of farms and for the improvement of living conditions thereon. The act aims at assisting, particularly, the average farmer who in the past has frequently not been able to secure bank credit for these purposes. It aims, moreover, at providing credit in a form and under terms and conditions which are convenient and suited to the needs and conditions of the particular farm borrower.
Then the introduction of the act lists the types of loans which will be regarded as farm improvement loans. A farm improvement
742	HOUSE OF
Farm Improvement Loans loan means a loan, first, for the purchase of agricultural implements; second, the purchase of livestock; third, the purchase or installation of agricultural equipment or a farm electric system; fourth, the alteration or improvement of a farm electric system; fifth, the erection or construction of fencing or works for drainage on a farm; sixth, the construction, repair or alteration of, or making of additions to, any building or structure on a farm; and seventh, any work for the improvement or development of a farm designated in the regulations.
In 1947, when the first two years had expired, the scope of the act was somewhat enlarged by a provision to include poultry farming. The original act had just permitted loans on livestock and fur-bearing animals. In 1948, when the three years ran out, the act was prolonged by parliament for a further three years, leading to the 28th of February, 1951, tomorrow.	At the same time land
security was authorized in certain instances. This latter step was considered desirable as enlarging the field of lending on the basis of such security.
By the terms of the original act, guaranteed farm improvement loans for the purpose which I read out from the act could be made by any of the chartered banks of Canada direct to the farmers. The government is made the guarantor of such loans to the extent of 10 per cent of the total amount of the loans made by any one of those banks. In the first period of the act, that is, from the 1st of March, 1945, until the 29th of February, 1948, the total liability of the government was limited to the total loans not to exceed $250 million. In that period, however, the total loans made amount to roughly $35 million. In the next three years the total liability of the government was to cover only the remainder of that $250 million, namely, roughly $215 million.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Ten per
cent of that.


James Sinclair: The total loans; the liability of the government was for 10 per cent of that total loan made by the banks; that is quite right. In that period a further $135 million was lent, so that the total loans-and I will give this in detail-up until December 31, 1950, were $170,054,703.34, roughly $170 million. Under these provisions the government's present contingent liability under its guarantee for the first three years of the operation of the act amounts to $1,022,079.70: that is, the loans given in the first three years which are still outstanding; and the total amount of outstanding loans made in the second period of operations, that is the period up to December, 1950, was $72,351,104.
[Mr. Sinclair.!

The history of the act is one of constantly growing and increasing usefulness. In the first ten months of operations, 4,311 loans for a total of $3,381,742 were made to farmers throughout Canada. In the calendar year of 1946, the first full year of operations, 13,030 loans were made, amounting to $9,880,565.74. Each year thereafter showed steadily increasing use of this act, until in the year just ended 58,969 loans were made for a total of $63,421,363. In other words from around $4 million of loans in the first year we have risen now to $63 million of loans in the last year. I hold in my hand a short table of loans and amounts by years. With the permission of the house I will give it in round figures so hon. members can follow it with the understanding that as it goes on Hansard it will be in the actual details.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Sinclair: The table follows:
Total Loans Made Since Inception of the Act
Year	Number of Loans made	Amount1945 (10 months only) .	
4,311	$ 3,381,742 021946 	
13,030	9,880,565 741947 	
22,046	18,160,821 471948 	
30,431	29,331,130 701949 	
44,775	45,879,080 351950 	
58,969	63,421,363 06Total 	
173,562	$170,054,703 34
Of these loans approximately 85 per cent were for the first classification, namely, the purchase of agricultural implements. I have a second table, which is very useful, showing the number and amount of loans in each of those categories listed in the act. Again I shall give them in round figures but they will be in detail on the record. They are as follows:
Loans Classified by Purposes
Purpose	Number	AmountPurchase of agricultural implements 	148,770	$151,852,684 81Purchase of livestock 	5,405	3,815,500 34Purchase or installation of agricultural equipment or a farm electric system	1,270	628,109 22Alteration or improvement of a farm electric system 	44	17,384 31Erection or construction of fencing or works for drainage on a farm	281	171,775 50Construction, repair or alteration of, or making additions to, any building or structure on a farm 	9,725	10,050,147 22Any other work for the improvement or development of a farm designated in the regulations	8,067	3,519,101 94Total 	173,562	$170,054,703 34
We have the loans also classified byprovinces. In view of the recent debates about the relative positions of the central provinces and the western provinces, it is an extremely interesting table. The loans are classified as follows: Saskatchewan leads with over 59,311 loans for $60 million; Alberta is second with 57,153 loans for $55 million; Manitoba is third with 25,544 for $25 million; Ontario is fourth with 18,586 for $18 million; Quebec fifth with 5,579 loans for $5,500,000; British Columbia with 4,865 loans for $4,600,000; Prince Edward Island has 1,035 loans for $880,000; New Brunswick has 725 loans for $734,000; Nova Scotia has 762 loans for $605,000. Newfoundland of course has been in for only a short time. It has 2 loans for $966. For each province the average is pretty close to $1,000 a loan.
I have one further table which I will include in the record if there is any interest in it. The loans are divided according to banks, how many loans made by each of the ten chartered banks of Canada. Shall I put it in the record?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed. Mr. Sinclair: The table follows:
Loans Classified by Banks Bank	Number Amount
Royal Bank of Canada	
43,631	$43,333,870	51Canadian Bank of Commerce	44,545	42,579,769	74Bank of Montreal	
31,143	30,016,497	61Bank of Nova Scotia	
14,786	15,965,263	46Imperial Bank of Canada	..	14,631	14,541,123	69Bank of Toronto	
14,498	13,442,046	43Dominion Bank	
5,166	5,081,519	65Banque Canadienne Nationale 5,137	5,063,753	22
La Banque Provinciale du
Canada	
24	27,929	03Barclays Bank	
1	2,930	00Total	
173,562	$170,054,703 34
That is the story so far as the loans are concerned. The repayment of the loans has been very good. Up to the end of 1950, out of this total of over $170 million lent, $96,681,000 has been repaid, leaving a total of loans outstanding today of $73,373,000. In the first four years of operations there were no claims by the banks against the government guarantee, understandably of course, because operations were just beginning, and very few of the loans matured in that period.
In 1939 there were thirteen claims by the banks amounting to $10,264. In 1950, twenty-two claims were made, totalling $9,396. On these claims the government has subsequently recovered $506, so that the net claims on the government in the entire period of the act have been $19,154.58.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I ask
a question?
Farm Improvement Loans


James Sinclair: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is there any evidence of accumulating claims, or does it look as if the thing has been cleared up year by year as it goes along. Can the parliamentary assistant give the figure of arrears of payments?


James Sinclair: I shall talk about extended
loans in a moment. Actually the figures for 1949-50 show that there are less claims in 1950 than in 1949. The act, of course, has regulations to go with it to govern its actual operations.
Perhaps I should briefly mention the only important changes in these regulations since the bill was last before the house. These changes were published in the Canada Gazette on January 24, 1951-last month. As the house knows, the government has taken steps to curtail all types of credit, as an antiinflationary measure at the present time. There have been restrictions of consumer credit and housing loans, and the chartered banks are now restricting business loans. A similar policy has been effected with respect to the credit provisions in this act.
The time for repayment of loans for the purchase of a motor truck has been set at a maximum of three years. Before, such loans could go over the whole period of ten years depending on the amount. The amount of loans for the purchase, and installation, and alteration and improvement of agricultural equipment and farm electrical systems has been reduced from 75 per cent to 66J per cent. In other words, instead of asking for one-quarter in cash we now ask for one-third in cash. For the construction, repair and alteration of farm buildings, instead of making a loan of 90 per cent we are now authorizing a loan of 80 per cent.
There have been no changes with respect to loans for the purchase of agricultural implements. As I pointed out 85 per cent of these loans have been for the purchase of agricultural implements.
The regulations also suggest to the banks the period for which loans of various amounts should be given. This, too, has been reduced somewhat. In loans up to $400 it is now suggested that they should have a maximum of eighteen months; in loans up to $750, two years and six months; up to $1,500, four years; up to $2,500, six years and up to $3,000, seven years.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: What is the rate of interest
paid by a farmer? Was there an interest rate set, or does it vary?


James Sinclair: The maximum interest rate
set under the act is 5 per cent. There is no
instance on record of a bank's charging less

Farm Improvement Loans than 5 per cent. That 5 per cent simple interest is the total interest rate. There is no other charge, as used to be made when the private financing of farm implements was done by commercial firms.
One other amendment to the regulations broadened the definition of loans for the improvement and development of a farm to include the purchasing and planting of fruit trees; so that orchard men are also now covered by this act.
In conclusion I wish to say that the Minister of Finance is most gratified by the growing confidence of our farmers in the usefulness of this act. This has been shown by the increase in the amount of loans each year. Farmers' associations across the country have been most helpful and have co-operated in every way, as have the banks.
There is just one other point I should like to make in closing this statement. The minister pointed out this afternoon, when the house gave permission to have the resolution presented at this time, that the present act expires tomorrow night. Because of the debate in reply to the speech from the throne, and the time taken by private members' days, it was not possible to introduce the bill any earlier this session. I am not asking this concession for myself, because in the House of Commons I have neither asked, given nor expected favours. Nor at this time is the government pressing this suggestion. But in the interest of those farmers who may be trying to negotiate loans in the days immediately after February 28-and the average number across the year is two hundred loans per business day, while at this particular time of the year it is much higher than that-it has been suggested that the house might give second reading tonight to indicate general approval of the principle of the bill, and then proceed to committee of the whole on Thursday or some later day this week. The chartered banks will take that as sufficient indication that the house is not opposed to the principle of the bill, and continue the practice after March 1 of making these loans until such time as royal assent is given after the bill has passed.


Gordon Graydon: Does that mean abolition
of the Senate?


James Sinclair: No. I realize, of course, that this is an unusual request. I would point out however that this is an unusually simple bill, containing only two sections, the first of which will extend the act for the next three years, and the second to provide that the total guaranteed loans for which the government accepts liability of ten per cent over the next three years will not exceed $200 million.


That is all that is included in the bill. Perhaps hon. members would indicate when they speak whether or not they feel second reading could be given tonight, and then the following stage in committtee of the whole, with questions of detail, could be considered on Thursday.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.


Mr. Charlton:: Has the government given consideration to making the objects of the bill include the setting up of young farmers on farms?


James Sinclair: I believe that question was raised some three years ago. However, there is a difference between a policy of encouragement for young farmers on farms by capital grants, and the ordinary business policy of guaranteeing bank loans to farmers who are in business and who are able to make regular payments on such loans. It was felt that that type of help could not properly be included in such a guaranteed farm loan scheme.


John Alpheus Charlton: Has the government given consideration to another piece of legislation to accomplish that end?


James Sinclair: Perhaps that question should be directed to the Minister of Agriculture or his parliamentary assistant because, as my hon. friend knows, my knowledge of agriculture is not very extensive. What I have here is the detail in connection with the operation of these particular loans.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for this resolution and to thank the parliamentary assistant for the comprehensive outline he has made respecting the operations of the act. Indeed, he has answered many things I intended to ask. He comes from British Columbia and understands the conditions in that province.
In British Columbia we have a great deal of timber land that must be cleared. Nowadays it is possible for a farmer to have clearing done under contract by the government, which has clearing equipment, and to arrange for payment in some cases over a period of years.
In some cases however that is not convenient. Has consideration been given to permitting loans for terms under this act, so that a farmer who wishes to borrow money for three years to pay off a contract to clear land is enabled to do so and thus earn the amount of the loan inside the three years from the land cleared?


James Sinclair: I am grateful to Hansard, because through Hansard of three years ago I was able to anticipate that this question would be asked, and others as well. Three

years ago the hon. member raised the same point. Since that time the regulations for the improvement of land have been interpreted to include clearing. In last year's report on the operations of farm loans there were 5,359 loans made for a total amount of over $2 million for the clearing of new land, to the extent of 266,902 acres. So that the loans are being made for that purpose; and especially in those provinces where local governments have made available land clearing equipment, those loans have gone ahead.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I noticed the parliamentary assistant said it was proposed to authorize a total of $200 million beginning from now.


James Sinclair: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: And it is
considered, having regard to the growth of loans over the last few years, that that will take care of the next three years?


James Sinclair: That is the estimate at the present time. Last year, as I said, there were loans of $63 million. With the restrictions in credit now provided in the regulations, and in view of the experience of the past six years, when we used $170 million, it was thought that a total of $200 million for the next three years would be a reasonable estimate of the needs of the farmers in this regard.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Has it been found that the alteration made three years ago with regard to the amount of security which may be taken has solved the problem which had made itself felt then, so that in effect loans are not prevented from being made because of technical difficulties?


James Sinclair: That is quite true, especially with the longer term loans. It might not be so for the short loans.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the regulations under this act permit the making of loans for the rehabilitation of orchards in British Columbia which were wiped out in the winter of 1949-50? Would that be classified as an improvement? Is there any way in which loans for that purpose could be obtained under this act?


James Sinclair: The amendment which I mentioned for the planting and purchase of trees had that in mind, but we must draw the line between a measure of rehabilitation and a business loan made to a farmer on the business understanding that he will be able to repay it. With that in mind loans may be made for both the cost of purchase and the cost of planting trees. But again it will be in the judgment of the lending institution to 80709-48
Farm Improvement Loans decide whether the farmer is in position to meet the semi-annual or annual payments.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is there any way in which the government exercises a directive function toward the lending institutions? Can you exert some sort of pressure on them so that it could be used for that purpose?


James Sinclair: There is no pressure whatsoever exercised by the government, either in connection with this type of loan or any similar type of loan which is handled by the same administration, such as the veterans business loan. Qualified as our civil service are, they have not had the day to day business experience of the risks and business values which the bank managers of this country have. Our interest in this does not go beyond the extent of providing the ten per cent guarantee.


Mr. Low:: What is the average term of loans made in the past?


James Sinclair: That was one question which I asked the administration, and also if they could break down the categories of loans. Unfortunately the records are not kept in that way, but we can give a good approximation. As I pointed out, the average figure for the loans is about $1,000. Eighty-five per cent of the loans are for the purchase of agricultural implements and those loans are limited to three years. Using a rough rule of thumb, the average loan is for $1,000 and is for less than three years.


Mr. Quelch:: Did I understand the parliamentary assistant to say that the total claims against the government to date were $19,000?


James Sinclair: That is right.


Victor Quelch: When a claim is made against the government does the government assume the responsibility for collecting the money? What is the policy of the government in so far as this $19,000 is concerned? Is a certain amount of it considered to be a dead loss? Has the government seized the machinery that would have been bought with these loans?


James Sinclair: The actual practice is that the bank itself, as it would do with any other business loan, makes every effort to recover what it can through usual legal means. It is only when the bank has exhausted every opportunity open to them that they make a claim on the government, which is investigated by our administration. Then the claim is on the books of our administration and we try to recover. There has been only $506 so recovered over two years.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: When a bank has not been able to get its money and makes

Farm Improvement Loans a claim on the government, does it then disappear from the scene so far as that loan is concerned?


James Sinclair: That is quite right.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: And the
government then takes steps itself? While I am on my feet I should like to ask one more question. In the 1949 report it states that the banks have continued to give excellent cooperation in promoting the objectives of this legislation, both by way of publicity and generally to make the provisions of the act known. I am interested in the extent of publicity.


James Sinclair: There are two ways in which they do it. First is through the ordinary, daily contacts between the bank manager and tie farmer who may come in, perhaps looking for a business loan. The bank manager may advise him how he can better get this particular kind of loan. The second is by means of one or two short pamphlets which were distributed to the farmers and which set out what he could expect under this legislation. The most valuable publicity is through the banks themselves in their daily contacts with the farmers who are endeavor ring to obtain loans.


Mr. McCubbin:: I do not wish to delay this bill in any way and I should like to commend the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance for the splendid account he has given of the administration of the Farm Improvement Loans Act. I do not know of anything that has helped the young farmers across Canada more than this act, especially since 1945. It has put the farm implement business on a cash basis, which arose out of the farm implement inquiry of 1937.
There is just one other thing I should like to say, a matter which was touched upon by the hon. member for Brant. Some effort must be made or some method devised to assist young farmers to start farming. I do not think there ever was a time in the history of Canada when farmers got more of the breaks to which they are entitled, but it is most difficult for a young man to start farming today. He may be a good worker and have a good reputation, but it is quite often difficult for him to get the first $1,000 or $1,500 with which to make a down payment on a farm. Once he has made that down payment he can get a mortgage or perhaps obtain assistance from the bank under this legislation. But he finds it most difficult to get started.
I know this government is sympathetic toward the needs of the farmers but they should devise some plan, to be worked through the chartered banks if necessary, to
[Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood) .1

help young farmers get a start in farming. After all, farming is still the basic industry of this country.


Mr. Argue:: I agree with the remarks of
the hon. member who has just spoken. It is true that it is almost impossible for a young farmer to start farming in 1951 unless he is able to obtain some capital, perhaps from his father or through a bank, mortgage company or in some other way. Unless the government comes to the assistance of young farmers they are not going to be able to start farming under present-day conditions.
I support the second reading of this bill tonight as I think this legislation has been of real benefit to agriculture throughout Canada. There is one practice that has been growing up that I should like to bring to the attention of the parliamentary assistant. He may be aware of it. I asked the Minister of Finance about this last fall and he said he would have the matter looked into, but I did not receive a reply during that session.
As I understand the provisions of the act, a bank is allowed to take security in the way of a mortgage if the loan is for more than $2,000 and the term is greater than five years. I can tell the parliamentary assistant that there has been growing up a practice in my community, and I know this applies also to other municipalities, whereby the banks ask the farmers to deposit their titles before they are given loans under this act. I know of cases where the loan has been for a period of less than five years and for a sum of less than $2,000. If we want the young farmer to be able to start farming, in my opinion a bank should not ask him for the title to the small piece of land he may own. In my opinion the bank is then asking for a longterm security on an intermediate term loan. Therefore I would ask the parliamentary assistant whether he knows of this practice, and if something cannot be done to curtail it at least to some extent.


James Sinclair: I do not know of the practice but on Thursday when we are in committee on the second reading of the bill I will have a statement ready on that point.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Is there any provision in the act to assist young farmers to buy land?


James Sinclair: No.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Has this act any relation to the farm loan board?


James Sinclair: The field covered by the farm loan board is a very different area from this. This measure is for the improvement of existing farms, the improvement and extension of the equipment on the farm, the house, the barns and that sort of thing. On the

other hand, the farm loan act is a different act providing for actual help in the purchase and acquisition of land. This act is confined entirely to the improvement of existing farms.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Has the farm loan board agents throughout the different provinces?


James Sinclair: The Canadian farm loan board of course has agents across the country. The Canadian farm improvement loan administration has not. There is a total staff of just sixteen which handles the administration of the government's interest in these loans and also veterans' business and professional loans. These latter are the same type of thing but most of the actual work in connection with the processing of these loans is done of course by the chartered banks of Canada. The Canadian farm loan board on the other hand is in a different category because it does the actual lending and the inspection of the type of assets on which the loan is requested.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I may be all wrong but I was under the impression the farm loan board was almost out of existence, that it was not promoting any more loans, that they were busy trying to collect and were refusing to take any more. Is that right or wrong?


James Sinclair: Mr. Chairman, I will be quite frank. As I said, I am not an agricultural expert. I have done considerable work on the bill but the only knowledge I have of the Canadian farm loan board is knowledge I have gleaned from their annual reports and from talking to the commissioners. I do know that the Canadian farm loan board is still in operation. It still has field offices across the country. It is still in the business of making loans. It of course is in active competition with other lending institutions, which is not the case with the measure involved before us.
In that connection I have one set of figures which perhaps I should have drawn to the attention of the committee. My mind was called to them by the comments of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture. They have to do with the question of financing agricultural implements. In the days before this act was introduced I am told that the common minimum rate of finance of agricultural implements was around 8 per cent. That is the effective rate because most of the rates specified were annual rates on the total unpaid balance which of course is only half the effective rate. The rate on the financing of trucks certainly went from 15 per cent to 18 per cent. As a consequence of the growing use of this legislation, we have had a tremendous change in the picture right across the country so far as the rates for instalment purchase of agricultural implements and farm trucks is concerned.
Farm Improvement Loans
From the figures available it now appears that 45-9 per cent of all farm tractors, 64-1 per cent of all combines and 50-7 per cent of all threshers purchased in Canada last year was with assistance under this act. When you take into consideration the considerable number of these articles that are undoubtedly purchased for cash you will see the great change in purchasing habits and how little use is made of other finance plans. So far as trucks are concerned, unfortunately it is very difficult to segregate farm trucks from other trucks, but I would expect that the same percentage would probably be true, that the purchase of around 50 per cent or 60 per cent of farm trucks is financed under the act.


Mr. Helme:: I am very much interested in this measure. I noticed that the hon. member for Assiniboia tonight made a remark similar to that which he made some time last year. It had to do with farm improvement loans and was to the effect that the borrower was required to deposit the title of his property with the banker when he was granted a farm improvement loan. During the last four or five years I have done quite a lot of business with farmers through farm improvement loans, and I was very much interested in what the hon. member had to say. Therefore during the time I was home I made it my business to inquire of my banker just what the procedure was. It seemed to me it was rather unreasonable that a farmer should be required to deposit his title with the banker. The banker said to me that that was the case but it was only done in order to protect the bank from the borrower borrowing twice on his own property. If we look at it in that light I think we will see that the banks were right in doing that.
I am very much interested in the bill referred to in the resolution. I heartily endorse it. It is a great help to farmers in carrying on their business. At the present time I believe the amount that can be borrowed is limited to $3,000. I understand that figure was set in 1944. Since that time there has been a considerable increase in the price of farm implements. For instance, take a self-propelled combine. It would sell for $3,700 or $3,800 at that time, and now the same machine runs around $5,000. I wonder if consideration might be given to increasing the amount permitted to be borrowed through such loans. I understand that the losses under the farm improvement loans have been very small and in fact insignificant. The proposal has my wholehearted support at this time.


John Horne Blackmore: I wish to speak as emphatically as I possibly can in support of the

Farm Improvement Loans remarks by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture a few moments ago. One thing I just do not quite see though is how he got the idea that a young fellow could start to farm with between $1,000 and $1,500. It seems to me he was exceedingly modest. I was talking to a successful farmer in my constituency before I left to come here, and he told me that it cost him in the neighbourhood of $16,000 to set up his son on a farm. The fact is that in the west it is necessary to buy very much larger tracts of land and it is generally necessary to have very much more machinery with the result that costs are completely prohibitive to the ordinary young man desiring to enter the farming business. I believe that the parliamentary assistant was exceedingly moderate. I suggest to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance that something will have to be done before long to help boys to get away from too large income taxes when they are trying to get established. I think also that the interest rate on these loans is too high. When you can get money from the Bank of Canada at two per cent it sounds absurd to be charging five per cent to the boys out on the farms who produce your bread and butter. It just does not go together to make sense, Mr. Chairman. If ever there was a time in our history when we needed production and should take every possible step to increase it, this is that time. So I commend this matter to the parliamentary assistant with the utmost earnestness, and ask him to do everything possible to see to it that adequate loans are made available on reasonable terms to good young men who want to go into farming. There is no sense giving a boy a loan he cannot possibly service with what he can make, so we will have to bring down the rate of interest and increase the period of the loan.
I should like to commend what was said by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture, and to express approval of this act. The people of my constituency were grateful to the government for bringing it in, and I am sure this latest change will be heartily welcomed.


Mr. Wright:: The hon. member for Prince Albert raised a point the government might well consider; that is, increasing the amount of money that may be made available. Today many farm implements cost between $4,000 and $5,000 each, and the limit available under this legislation is scarcely enough to make it possible to buy those implements.
The hon. member for Middlesex West brought up the possibility of making available some form of credit to young farmers trying to become established on the land. I suggest
[Mr. Blackmore.l

to the hon. member that he bring that matter to the attention of the government to see whether at this session we cannot have some amendment of the regulations of the farm loan board which would enable that board to make larger loans than they make at the present time. One hon. gentleman asks if the board is still active. It is very active and is making a large number of loans, but the maximum amount of any loan is fixed at $5,000 plus, I believe, $2,000 on a second mortgage. Today that is not sufficient to establish the average young man in agriculture. The price of land has gone up; the prices of equipment have gone up; the unit of land the young man must have in order to operate efficiently is much larger today than it was when the farm loan board legislation was passed. I believe the government would be well advised at this session to make a study of that act to see if we cannot have some amendment which would perhaps double the amount of loan that might be made. I think this is absolutely necessary, and I know it would be very much appreciated.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: I should like to express appreciation of this legislation and the help it has been since it was brought into force in 1944. Certainly it has been of great assistance to many people, but on the other hand I believe we have rather outgrown the limit of $3,000. As the hon. member for Prince Albert said, when this legislation was enacted in 1944 we discussed it at length and in detail. At that time you could purchase a self-propelled combine for a good deal less than $3,000. Today that machine costs from $4,500 to $5,000. I remember that in 1947, two or three years after this legislation was brought in, you could purchase a diesel tractor for about $2,500. Today that tractor out where I live costs around $4,200. You cannot purchase any of the better types of equipment today for less than $3,000, though you could buy a great many articles of equipment for less than that amount when this legislation was brought down.
For quite a few years now the question of how many capable young men can get started farming for themselves has given us great concern. I do not know much about the setup in the east, but really I could not follow the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture when he mentioned a figure of $1,000 or $1,500. That would not get one a good piece of equipment anywhere in our country. I think something must be done, either by amending the farm loan board act or by bringing in a new act, so that a worthy young chap who wants to farm, who has the

training and background for it, can be financed and assisted. It is just about impossible for that young man to do so today in western Canada, and I believe in most parts of the country as well.
So while I want to express my appreciation of this legislation and the fact that it has been extended, I am sorry that those responsible have not seen fit to increase the maximum individual allotment by at least another $1,000, making it $4,000 instead of $3,000. However, I hope those in authority will try during this session of parliament to bring in some legislation under which a young man with the proper qualifications and background can be assisted to establish himself on the land. That would be well worth while and deserving of our best consideration at this time.


Mr.   Baler@: I am quite in accord with the assistance afforded under this act to many young farmers. During this debate mention has been made of the need to deposit the title with the banker. Under this legislation is it absolutely necessary that a young farmer have a clear title to his property before he can get a loan?


James Sinclair: Perhaps this would be a good time to answer this series of questions. The first was raised by the hon. member for Prince Albert and others, suggesting that the present maximum loan of $3,000 might have been adequate in 1945 but is not now adequate. That matter was under review when the legislation was being drafted, but I would point out that the figures I had, and which I mentioned, showed that the average loan across the country, in almost every province other than Newfoundland, was in the vicinity of $1,000 or a little less, which would not indicate very much pressure on the $3,000 ceiling. When the bill is in committee after second reading next Thursday I will endeavour to be able to state just how many loans are for the full $3,000; but since the average across the country is $1,000, at the moment there would not seem to be much pressure on the ceiling.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Can you find out if any applications have been refused because they were for more than $3,000?


James Sinclair: Even if a man applied for $4,000, and the bank said it could only give him $3,000, that would still show up as a $3,000 loan in the records.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: But I wondered whether there was any evidence of people trying to get more and getting none.


James Sinclair: That would be fairly difficult to ascertain from the records.
Farm Improvement Loans


Francis Heselton Helme: When the parliamentary assistant is getting the information as to the number of $3,000 loans, will he try to compare the number of loans of that amount with the total number of loans in the particular area?


James Sinclair: Yes, that will be done. The other point I would mention in this connection is that we have actually given what might be called negative assistance. If you study the restrictions we have imposed upon credit here you will find that they are not quite as stiff as those we have imposed upon consumer credit. For example, under our consumer credit regulations automobiles have to be paid for in eighteen months, with a 20 per cent down payment. Under this act trucks can be paid for during a period of up to three years. That is a negative help, if you will; but here again, as was pointed out by the Minister of Finance, one of our chief anti-inflationary weapons at the present time is curtailing credit as much as possible, and encouraging payment in cash.
The next point was made by the hon. member for Lethbridge, that the interest rate seems excessive. This point was dealt with at some length in the 1944 debate, which I read with much interest. I have done my best to make a comparison of this interest rate with other interest rates. The first and most obvious comparison is that the interest rates farmers used to have to pay for loans to finance these purchases, as I pointed out, were a minimum of eight per cent for implements and as much as fifteen and eighteen per cent on trucks. These, of course, often had in addition all sorts of service charges. So far as the individual farmer is concerned, there certainly has been a great deal of improvement in the five per cent simple interest of this act.
The next thing, of course, which must be considered in so far as an interest rate is concerned, is the class of security and the cost of actually inspecting and servicing these loans. The member for Greenwood is certainly much more qualified to speak on this subject than I am. Certainly when you are making a great number of small loans for fairly short periods of time, where the actual goods or securities in question may be on outlying farms some distance from the place of doing business, there will be charges and costs which are not experienced in the ordinary business loan in a city. Today the ordinary business loan in the city is at around six per cent. It is true that the farm loan board is charging only four and a half per cent. The loans granted by this board are
750	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Farm Improvement Loans larger loans on better security, and they are loans for a longer term, some of them up to twenty-five years.
Another thing which is perhaps forgotten when we are talking about this rate of interest on loans is just how much successful business you have to do in a lending institution to make good capital losses. Tracing through the loss of one average loan of $1,000, the first obvious thing is that at five per cent you would need to have twenty times that business or $20,000 of loans outstanding so that your five per cent return from these successful loans would equal your capital loss on the one bad loan. However, the five per cent return to the bank is not profit. I believe the bank would be very lucky to have a net return of perhaps eight per cent on their transactions, so there would be twelve times that loan necessary to return them in profit the loan they have lost, which runs to $240,000. I believe that factor is very often overlooked when people talk in terms of interest rates.
The keenness with which farmers of this country have, in recent years, turned to this loan system at five per cent to my mind is a good indication that it is an acceptable rate of interest when compared to other rates they paid before, or other avenues that are now open to them.


William Scottie Bryce: It is better than eight per cent.


James Sinclair: Yes, and that is said in the proper accent of a fellow Scot.
The next point which strikes this treasury board conscience I seem to be developing in the last few years concerns this matter of how desirable it would be to have an expansion of this act so that the farm loan board could provide the necessary capital to start a young farmer on a farm. I believe we all agree it would certainly be socially desirable to give help in this direction. The government has done that for just one class of person in recent years, and that is the veterans. After all they were a special responsibility of all the people of Canada, and under both the Veterans Land Act and the veterans business and loan act, we have extended quite generous loans to start veterans on farms, in businesses, in professions. But I am afraid were we today to embark on a program of making advances to all young farmers to start farming, we would quickly have pressure from members, like myself for example, and other members who represent fishing ridings to have grants made to young fishermen. Then, the members from Toronto and Montreal would have an equally good case for young professional men, doctors and lawyers who were opening up offices and so on. As parliamentary assistant,

I do not think I can say much about what consideration the government can give to a program of that size.


William Scottie Bryce: What about the politicians who are starting out?


James Sinclair: Sometimes they receive
encouragement, and sometimes they do not. I think those of us who are here today have received some encouragement from our electorate.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to point out that the young farmer can obtain a loan from the farm loan board. We are just asking that he be able to get sufficient to start business.


James Sinclair: The matter of degree, of course, is the important thing. Some comments were made about the inadequacy of these loans given for farm improvements. I just want to say that the best proof of the welcome those loans have received has been the growing amount of loans each year.


John Horne Blackmore: I quite appreciate most of the things the parliamentary assistant has said, and the way he has said them. He has shown a considerable amount of sympathy for the situation about which we are talking. I do not see why the government should not stand this matter of capital financing to the degree to which it is necessary to obtain the production this country needs. If Canada needs a greater production of fish in order to help fight inflation, and everyone seems to agree that the best way to fight inflation is by production, then what better possible use could be made of the nation's credit than by advancing aid to those who produce fish? Similarly, if those who are producing bread and butter need aid, then it should be advanced. I think the time has come for us to broaden out considerably along the lines the parliamentary assistant has very wisely begun to outline. After all, money is the creation of the state.
If we are looking at it from the point of view of the lending business for the banks, that is one thing. But if we are looking at it from the point of view of bread and butter production, that is another thing. The latter is the thing for which we are looking. The banker can take care of himself. That would be my general reaction, so I would have no fear whatever and would certainly support the parliamentary assistant if he were asking for capital aid for fishermen.
There is another thing, and that is the reference to the interest rate. Let us bear in mind that since those eight per cent rates were charged the price of money has gone down. During world war I loans were made at five per cent, but during world war II loans

were made at three per cent. Money v as not a bit easier to get in world war II than it was in world war I, but we have simply changed our ideas as to how much money was worth. We have gone further from the idea that money is a commodity, something you can create. That would be my general observation, and I am sure that the minister will view that with considerable interest.


Victor Quelch: I might say that I think this is a splendid act. I especially like the way the banks have been making loans to veterans, even though they settled under the Veterans Land Act. The situation was entirely different in 1919 and 1920. Any veteran who settled under the old soldier settlement board was not able to get a loan from the bank.
There is one point I should like to clear up. If a borrower is not able to meet his payment owing to conditions over which he has no control, such as crop failure or hail storm, the banks are allowed to carry that payment over. What will happen at the end of ten years if the borrower is unable to complete his payment for the ten years and the banker is willing to extend the payment over another year? Will the bank still be covered by the guarantee, or will it be lost?


James Sinclair: I am glad the hon. member has mentioned that because it is one point I had noted when it was raised in 1945. So far as the extension of loans is concerned because of temporary difficulties on the part of the borrower, that is provided for in the regulations. So far 5,868 loans have been extended. There are two different types of extensions. First of all, there is the extension which the banks themselves authorize. For example, we shall say a borrower has bought a truck for which he intended to pay in two years. He finds he cannot meet his payments, but the regulations provide he has three years in which to pay. The bank can give him an extension of one year merely by notifying the administrative offices.
If, on the other hand, at the end of three years the borrower cannot complete his payment then the bank must refer the details to the administration here for them to approve of an extension of the statutory period, and that has been done. As to what the policy will be at the end of ten years, that time still will not be even within the scope of this act. That question can be more properly raised three years from now when the act is again before parliament. If the present practice with regard to shorter terms less than a ten-year period is an indication, then I will say that the government will go on as the hon. member has suggested.
Farm Improvement Loans


Mr. Major:: Take the case of a farmer not knowing of the Farm Improvement Loans Act and who purchases machinery on finance. Under this act can he borrow from the bank and refinance his obligations and come under the terms of the act and thereby save the interest he would otherwise pay?


James Sinclair: I would think so, but I would prefer to answer that question on Thursday. It would depend of course on whether he was able to discharge his obligation with the finance company and then be granted credit by a bank under this act, but I will answer that on Thursday.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Harris, Grey-Bruce (for Mr. Abbott*
thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 78, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act, 1944.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a second time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


John Alpheus Charlton: We have not seen the bill yet. When we were in committee on the resolution it was my understanding that the bill would be read a second time on Thursday.


James Sinclair: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may have been absent from his seat when I spoke on the resolution. I explained about the deadline of tomorrow night and suggested that if the house were agreeable we would give second reading to the bill, because the banks have indicated that with second reading they would go on lending after tomorrow night until the bill is finally passed. If we give second reading to the bill tonight we will not go into committee of the whole to consider it until Thursday or later. The bill has only two sections.


George Alexander Drew: This should be facilitated and can be dealt with tomorrow. A bill should not be dealt with on second reading until the bill itself is before the house.


James Sinclair: Tomorrow is private members' day, and that is why it cannot be dealt with tomorrow. I am entirely in the hands of the house. As I pointed out, this matter is of little concern to the government. The only persons to whom it is of concern are the three hundred farmers a day, on the average, who are making applications for loans at this time, and who may be held up.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Did we not on the orders of the day today decide that this bill would receive second reading tomorrow?

Indian Act


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is the bill ready for
distribution?


George Alexander Drew: Perhaps it would be simplified if the bill were distributed and hon. members had an opportunity of reading it. If that were done it might be disposed of very quickly.


James Sinclair: One copy of the bill has been printed. Copies will be available for distribution tomorrow. If the house wants to postpone it until Thursday, all right. The only reason why I put it forward was in consideration of those applying for loans. So far as the bill is concerned, it has only two clauses. The first one extends the life of the act for a further period of three years from March 1, and the second clause limits the liability of the government to loans of two hundred million dollars.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house wish to give the bill second reading now?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.
Mr. Harris, Grey-Bruce (for Mr. Abbott) moved the second reading of Bill No. 78, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act, 1944.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce)-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend, consolidate and clarify the Indian Act, and to provide, inter alia, for band funds and expenditures therefrom, and for other appropriations in case of deficiency or lack of band funds.
John Horne Blackmore: I can understand, Mr. Chairman, how the position I have been taking might not be very acceptable to the minister. As do other hon. members, I realize that the Indians are here to look at this bill, and they are expecting to look at the bill tomorrow. I realize that tomorrow is private members' day, and in order to get the bill through so that the Indians could look at it, according to the rules of the house, it may be necessary for the government to ask permission of the house to suspend the rules tomorrow for a time long enough to get this bill through. But I have a feeling that the Indians will feel far more as though they had been taken into partnership in respect of this legislation if they are given the privilege of talking it over in detail before this

house advances the bill one stage toward becoming an act. If I were an Indian that is exactly the reaction I would have.
The Indians have always considered themselves to be partners with the white men. All the treaties they signed indicated that the white man looked upon them as partners; but since the Indians signed the treaties they have had an excessively difficult time asserting their right to be looked upon as partners. The white men choose to disregard their claim for partnership.
I believe that has been one of the major factors in the general discouragement of the Indians throughout the country over all the years. I think today is a pretty good time to change our ways and take the Indians actually into partnership and say to them just as the queen's representative used to say: "The Queen is your mother." Well, let us say that now and mean it, and let us do it. Let us talk the thing over.
The minister mentioned Andy Pauli and other men from British Columbia. I know these men. They are outstanding men. The men from Alberta are outstanding men, and I presume that the men from the other provinces are equally outstanding.
Mr. Chairman, if they had had the opportunities you and I have had they would sit in the House of Commons with as great dignity and effectiveness as the very finest members in the house. They would occupy governmental benches with just as great dignity and effectiveness.
Why not allow them to participate in a free and open discussion of the bill which is to decide their fate for probably thirty years? That is the way I feel about it. I believe that if we just do not proceed with the bill tonight we would be wise. If the minister would say, "Well, I will do that for these Indians", he would never have cause to regret it, and I do not believe the House of Commons would ever regret it.
It might take us another day or two, but if we can give the Indians throughout the country the feeling that we honestly intend to be fair with them, it would be a wonderful step forward in making out of these men and their decendants the great citizens we all know they are capable of becoming, and we all desire they shall be. That is my general approach to the matter.
I should like to see this done: I should like to see the minister go to meet the Indians- as, indeed, he has already done; and all honour to him for his having done it. I think it is the first time a minister in Canada has ever done that. It has had a profound effect upon the Indians. I know, because I have talked with them.

If the minister would go to them tomorrow and. say to them frankly, "I want your advice on this whole matter. We are going to do this thing in partnership. If there are things in the act that you want but which we feel we cannot give you, we want to tell you frankly about them. We do not want to trick you into anything. If you cannot see it our way, just let us keep talking it over until you can, even if we have to defer the passage of our act for another year,"-if the minister would say that to them, I know it would' be helpful.
We are entering trying times. Thousands of these men may be called upon to have their sons don the colours of the nation. Well, we might as well have them feel that they are blood brothers, that they are really Canadians. A few days extra will not make any difference. If the minister were to say to them, "Now, look, if you people will just say so, we will make arrangements to have the house put the bill through first and second readings tomorrow", then, so far as I am concerned, 1 will do everything within my power to expedite that very achievement.
Then they would know that they had a hand in the passage of the bill. We could put the bill through so that they could see it tomorrow night, tomorrow afternoon, or perhaps the next day. And, even if they have to stay over in Ottawa an extra day, the cost of keeping them in the Chateau Laurier would not be very great-especially in times like these, when we allow such liberal expense allowances to our government representatives, even to the extent of $25 a day and the like. In those circumstances why not make a little bit of an allowance to some of these delegates, some of these great Indian people throughout Canada?
That is my general reaction to the matter. I would rather see us not put this resolution through tonight, and for the reasons I have advanced.
Then, I should like to say one or two other things which I did not have time to say this afternoon. These are facts which I am sure many hon. members would wish to have before them, as will also those thousands of people throughout the country who are vitally interested in the Indians and who will be happy to know that we are taking time to consider them.
This afternoon I referred to certain requests from the Caughnawaga reservation. I should now like to refer to certain requests made by the Alberta Indian association, because I think it is worth while putting these things before the house. The Indian association of Alberta is under the able direction of John Laurie, a school teacher in
Indian Act
Calgary who has worked so hard for the Indians in the last twelve or fifteen years that he is in danger of death from heart failure. This man has toiled inconceivably in order to have this brief prepared. He has called the Indians together and talked with them.
Here are the recommendations of those Indians, in convention. They say, concerning the act:
The provisions of the bill fail to provide for the logical second step in the progress of the treaty Indian, gradual extension of self-government and administration of reserve affairs. The bill admits the existence of only two grades of Indians-the incapable old-fashioned Indian who in mind and mode of life has made no real progress since the coming of the white man, and the Indian whom your government, in spite of all agreements and treaties of any kind at any time, proposes to catapult into the responsibilities of full citizenship.
It will be noticed that the wording there is moderate. The condemnation of the act is emphatic, incisive and definite. And it is very serious. Then:
2.	The provisions of the bill fail to provide for the continued recognition of the Indian as an Indian. That is his right by every moral precept. He does not wish to be a white man. He wishes to preserve his identity as an Indian within the protection of his reserve.
One more condemnation of the act!
3.	The provisions of the bill fail to provide that band membership must remain undisturbed as at April 1, 1950, and that the descendants of the present members must be guaranteed full privileges of Indian status within treaty or agreement.
4.	The provisions of the bill fail to provide that in all matters affecting the integrity of the reserves the administration and expenditure of all Indian moneys, whether revenue or capital, the consent of the majority of the electors of the band must first be had and obtained.
5.	The provisions of the bill fail to provide that hunting, fishing and trapping rights must be restored to the Indian as at the time of the treaties or agreements.
6.	No form of voting in any white man's election must be forced upon the Indian without his consent. It appears that such provision is being considered by an amendment to the Elections Act.
7.	The provisions of the bill fail to recognize that in the words of Lieutenant Governor Alexander Laird, "it takes two to make the bargain."
And may I stop there to observe that that is the very thought I have been trying to express to the minister since I commenced speaking after supper. Let the act be a bargain in which two peoples participate. It should not be a bargain made by one of them and thrust upon the other.
8.	Above all, we respectfully urge that a clause be written into the bill granting any Indian the right to appeal to the supreme court of their respective provinces in case of a dispute over the exercise of the discretionary powers which may be vested in either the minister or the governor in council.
This eighth paragraph is not in their brief, but it is the closing paragraph of a letter

Indian Act
written by Mr. Laurie on September 7, accompanying the Alberta statement. The other seven points are directly from the Alberta Indian brief. I would feel relieved if the minister could take each one of these points and show that there is no valid basis for the conclusion reached. If the minister can satisfy me in that respect I shall say no more. I will hasten along the bill.
Hon. members must know that I have lived alongside Indians all my life. My father took up a homestead bordering the Blood Indian reservation, with just a road between. As a little boy I rode on that reserve. I know the Indians and their trials and tribulations. If we continue with the discussion of this legislation long enough I shall tell the house about the experience the Blood Indian tribe had in 1918 at the close of world war I. This experience is set forth ably by a man who was the agent of the Blood Indians from 1898 on for some time. It is an experience that I believe every hon. member of this house would revolt at.
It involved the required surrender of large sections of their splendid reservation regardless of the needs of their children in the future. If every hon. member of this house heard the details of that whole arrangement which spread over four years and more and which was carried out by a certain Indian agent I know he would never lift a hand to forward this legislation until he had an unbreakable guarantee that never again in the future would any Indian agent or group of men be able to perpetrate on any group of Indians anything comparable with that experience. But it happened right in Canada on the Blood reserve.


Mr. Gillis:: Sounds like the maritime rights.


John Horne Blackmore: It was a dreadful thing.
The worst thing about it was that no matter what the Indians thought about it, they simply could not get redress. I do not propose to go into that now, but it is a fact that I have had experience with things of that sort. I lived right there when that thing happened. I saw the lands that were attempted to be taken away from the Indians under what you might call compulsory consent. I have been over them time and time again,
I am in a peculiar position in respect to this matter. I am sure that if every hon. member were in a similar position he would feel responsible to do just exactly what I am doing and would urge moderation and great reservation in proceeding with this legislation. While it may not particularly 
interest the house, perhaps I might appropriately give some sort of idea of the position I occupy. In addition to being a member of parliament I possess as another set of credentials the fact that I was raised right close to the Blood reserve. I have ridden over that reserve ever since. I am a member of parliament for the Blood Indians and I am an honorary chief of the Blood Indians. It makes a difference when you are an honorary chief. You feel you have more responsibility.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What is your Indian name?


John Horne Blackmore: I shall give it in good
time. I was initiated at the sun dance in 1945 by Head Chief Shot From Both Sides, Chief Cross Child and Chief John Cotton, and given the name of Motuskumau, "The Good Adviser." In addition to that I am director on the executive of what is known as the Kainai chieftainship, which is an organization comprised of thirty-five members who have thus far been selected by the Blood Indians as honorary chiefs from among their white brothers. This Kainai chieftainship organization was set up through the earnest efforts of Archdeacon S. H. Middleton in Lethbridge on December 14, 1950, with E. R. McFarland of Lethbridge as president. The aim of the organization is to help the Indians help their children to a better life.
I suppose that is enough to show the minister that some indulgence ought to be exercised on my behalf for appearing to be so uncooperative in the matter of advancing this bill. I want to be sure that everybody feels happy about it. Before I discontinue these remarks I should like to say that there seems to be considerable anxiety on the part of hon. members that the cost of giving the Indians the services they deserve is going to be so great, probably in the course of the next hundred years, that the nation will not be able to sustain it. A suspicion which prevails everywhere is that the Liberal government is endeavouring to "get out from under" the burden of supporting the Indians up to a standard of living they know the Indians should have, before the burden becomes too heavy. They are using their great majority in order to accomplish that objective and have been exerting a certain measure of pressure.
I am not saying that that is correct, but it looks as though it were the case. The changes in the act seem to be designed to enable men to limit membership on the reserve and to obtain greater control over things on the reserve.
There is no justification for the anxiety that we shall not be able to support the Indians. This nation has only begun its career of production and industrial and economic

development. As days go by we shall come more and more to see that where we can produce goods, we can produce money.
All we need to do is to devise means whereby the Indians can share in the production which we can so abundantly bring into being and which they will gladly help us to bring into being. All we need to do is to bring ourselves to the point where we can see that and then we shall have no anxiety about how many Indians there are. The only thing we shall wish is that there were more of them. I do not know of any Indians who are communistically inclined or even suspected, notwithstanding the way we have treated them.
I believe I have pretty well cleared away the reasons why we should not be urgent about passing this resolution. I am now going to ask the minister to explain away each of these charges that have been made. It is only fair that he have a chance to do that after all that has been said. If he can clear away these charges it may change my attitude in regard to the matter of letting the resolution pass.
I am going to give them to him one by one. First I ask him to show that the bill which he proposes to introduce does not fail to provide for the logical second step in the progress of treaty Indians, the gradual extension of self-government and the administration of reserve affairs. Will the minister state whether or not he considers that charge invalid?


Walter Edward Harris: If my hon. friend wants to see the bill he should permit this resolution to pass. He will then see that that provision has been made. In fact it was made by Bill No. 267. Bill No. 267 gave ample authority for every kind of self-government from the least unto the greatest, to complete citizenship. This objection to the bill was unfounded with respect to 267 and is equally unfounded with respect to the one that will be introduced after the resolution passes.


John Horne Blackmore: The minister has answered very well but you know the words that he used are what we call weasel words out west. You can say everything that he said and justify it by simply saying: We are going to make all the Indians assume citizenship and vote, and the result is that by voting for members of parliament and M.L.A.'s they are going to become self-governing as we are. That is exactly what the Indians are afraid of, and everything the minister has said could be justified through that very interpretation.


Walter Edward Harris: I had that in mind to some extent but only to a very limited
Indian Act
extent. I was really referring to the powers of the band councils over the management of affairs and the moneys of the bands, which I think is what my hon. friend had in mind.


John Horne Blackmore: That is right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Ask him if they are still subject to veto.


John Horne Blackmore: The question is: Can the decision of the band council be vetoed by the agent or the minister? If it can then obviously there is a power which overrules the band's decision and renders it of no avail. That has been the unhappy experience of bands in the past, and that is their fear today. What has the minister to say with respect to that matter?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, the present Indian Act does not give band councils complete authority over the expenditure of their moneys, as my hon. friend knows. Bill 267 did not do that nor will the bill that is to be introduced do that for the simple reason that there are some things which must remain the responsibility of the government of Canada as long as they are handling the money of the Indian.


John Horne Blackmore: That is well answered. What other items are there, other than the handling of money, which enter into the ruling of a reservation? There must be several other things besides controlling their own money which enter into the ruling of a reservation. For example, there is membership in the band, and whether or not an Indian person shall be able to buy a portion of land, hold it himself, and probably in the course of a generation sell it to some person off the reserve. All such matters certainly come within the purview of band control or government over the reserve.


Walter Edward Harris: Have we disposed of No. 1 yet?


John Horne Blackmore: I am not sure that we have. I am trying to get all the details.


Walter Edward Harris: Because what my hon. friend is talking about now is a section later on which deals with the disposition of reserves without the consent of the majority of the electors of the band. I think he is referring to No. 4 which says that the provisions of the bill-that is Bill 267-fail to provide that in all matters affecting the integrity of the reserves, the administration and expenditure of all Indian moneys, whether revenue or capital, the consent of the majority of the electors of the band must first be had and obtained.
That is the only representation from any Indian organization asking for that amount of control over their own affairs. Most of

Indian Act
them feel that the council can deal with these things without having a vote of the majority of the electors of the band.


John Horne Blackmore: That seems a rather satisfactory and straightforward answer. No. 2 is: The provisions of the bill fail to provide for the continued recognition of the Indian as an Indian. That is his right by every moral precept. He does not wish to be a ''white man"; he wishes to preserve his identity . . .
What would the minister say with respect to that?


Walter Edward Harris: The present
Indian Act does not say anything about preserving the right of an Indian to be an Indian. We have never taken that away from him. No bill is taking it away from him. He may call himself an Indian forever.


John Horne Blackmore: But the important question is, does it go further than calling himself an Indian? Can he enjoy and claim legally all rights which appertain to the status of being an Indian?


Walter Edward Harris: Certainly.


John Horne Blackmore: Now we will take No. 3.


Donald Methuen Fleming: How many more are there?


John Horne Blackmore: There are eight. I am sure everybody wants to know what they are, and I am sure that the minister wants an opportunity to answer them. He feels confident of being able to do so, and when he meets the Indians tomorrow he will be able to say* "This is what I said". No. 3 is:
The provisions of the bill fail to provide that band membership must remain undisturbed as at April 1, 1950 ...	....
Is this the case or is it not the case?


Walter Edward Harris: It is not the case.
I cannot understand why the date April 1, 1950, has been chosen. It has no significance to me or the department. What the bill does do is define an Indian, and so far as I am informed those who are now properly called Indians will continue to be Indians under the new bill.


John Horne Blackmore: But everything depends on what the meaning of "properly" is, how it is to be interpreted. That is where the trouble lies. Who is going to determine whether an Indian is properly a member of a band or whether he is not? Where does the jurisdiction lie? Does it lie in the band council, in the band membership as a whole, in the two together, in the agent or in the minister?


Walter Edward Harris: It lies in parliament to determine the definition of an Indian. If my hon. friend is not satisfied with the definition of an Indian in the bill when he sees it he may move an amendment.


John Horne Blackmore: The Indians feel that it does not properly reside in parliament. May I express the Indian's point of view? He says: We Indians made a treaty with the white people. We were equals with the white people. Why should a parliament consisting entirely of white men, towards the election of hardly any one of whom we contributed by a single vote, have the authority to determine the definition of an Indian? As far as I can see there is no answer. Here is one of their key points. I think I have said enough on that. The minister says the word "properly" is the whole thing.


Walter Edward Harris: I used that word because there may be people today who are not Indians but who are calling themselves such, and I would not want to be understood as guaranteeing that they would continue a status which they took unto themselves and which is not proper.


John Horne Blackmore: The trouble is that there are some Indians who are properly Indians, and who have been ejected from the Indian reserves. I have this information. I do not know whether the minister has it. It has to do with section 5 of Bill 267. This is another letter from John Laurie, the indefatigable servant of the Indians, a man whose devotion to the Indians I find it almost impossible to understand. You would ordinarily expect a man to do something with the hope of some ultimate achievement. John Laurie can have no advancement as a result of all the work he has done and is doing. He puts the matter this way:
In the case of Robert Walker, formerly No. 83 of Driftpile band, the officers of the Indian affairs branch (Mr. McCrlmmon) were satisfied to accept a statement from an aged Indian (late Chief Estachi-kon) who could not speak English, and through an interpreter who had already been discovered! practising fraud in connection with his own children who were the progeny of himself and a treaty woman. This man was Charlie Anderson, interpreter at the Driftpile reserve.
The Indians assert that this man, and especially his wife, are well known trouble makers but the field officers have consistently protected him and dismissed any protests. It is true that the late chief signed an affidavit, but it is unlikely that he knew what an affidavit was. Is it not possible that the interpreter, Charlie Anderson, was determined to make others suffer because he himself had been in trouble? In any event the late chief repudiated his affidavit when an Indian of his band talked to him about what he had done. (Correspondence on this must be on file in the branch, as we submitted it). But his repudiation passed without recognition and the word of Anderson was accepted. Was it because the branch officers were determined to gain their ends that a fraudist was allowed to determine the destiny of another man? The man Walker was already thirty-three or thirty-four years of age. How could anyone establish Walker's parentage at that late date?
In this case the Indian was ejected from the reserve, quite unprepared to compete

successfully in the society of the white men. He had no recourse whatever to any tribunal but had to accept the flat of certain members of the department. What conceivable control could that band exercise over the disposition of this man Walker, who they maintained was one of their own members?


Walter Edward Harris: I am not
familiar with this particular case. If my hon. friend will send me the details I will look into it and give him an explanation.


John Horne Blackmore: I knew the minister would say that. I have already paid the minister one compliment, because I greatly admire him and I do not mind saying so. My goodness, we get so few bouquets as we go through life that it does not hurt to get or give one once in a while. But the Indians want some stipulation in the act that will render it impossible or at least highly improbable that such a thing will ever be repeated in any band in Canada as long as the Indians live. If that Indian had been free to take his case to the supreme court of Alberta and the decision had gone against him he would have had to do as a white man does when he loses a decision. As it was, however, all the evidence it appears was in his favour, all the facts it seems were in his favour, but he was ejected from the reserve with all his descendants.


Walter Edward Harris: I think the hon. member knows that I spent a whole day with the president and secretary of the Indian association of Alberta discussing this brief. They made certain representations with respect to the subject now under discussion, and I suggest that when my hon. friend sees the bill he may find that they are satisfied on that point, at least in part if not wholly.


John Horne Blackmore: I would be inclined to accept what the minister says, but what bothers me is that once we see the bill it will have gone through first reading, and the government with its steamroller can put it through second reading in spite of anything that can be done by all the people of Canada. That is the risk we run, and that is why I am very much concerned. However, the minister has given his answer; now let us take No. 5.
5.	The provisions of the bill fail to provide that hunting, fishing and trapping rights must be restored to the Indian as at the time of the treaties or agreements.
In that connection I am going to make this statement. I have never had the consent of the Indians to do so, but I am going to make it no matter how they feel about it. It must be recognized that a province has jurisdiction over the game and fish in that province. It must be recognized that a province must make regulations in order to protect and
Indian Act
preserve that game; and this applies to every province in Canada including Alberta. The Indians, of course, feel unhappy because they are denied the privilege of catching fish during a certain season, or shooting game of all kinds throughout the season. The answer to that cannot possibly be put into any act of this parliament, and I would not expect the minister to try to do so since he would have no constitutional authority. However, I repeat what I indicated in my talk this afternoon. Where the Indians find it necessary to hunt and fish in order to live, and that privilege is denied them because of the growth of civilization-that is the way you have to put it; because of the onward progress of civilization-provision should be made to make up their loss.
This, of course, represents a tremendous advance beyond anything men have dreamed of, but some such advance has to be made. Take beef, for example. Indians hunt deer and other animals because they need meat. If they cannot get deer or other game, we could produce the beef and let them have it. There is no difficulty about it, if we can only discover the proper method of financing. Obviously there is a way of financing, so I say in this case I would not expect the minister to put any such provision in the act; but I would expect some provision for making up to the Indian the loss he suffers in this way, and that certainly can be done. My heart simply bleeds when I think of certain Indians in British Columbia who used to live on salmon and who now find their salmon supply entirely gone, with nothing done to remedy the situation. However, I will not ask the minister to answer that unless he chooses to do so.


Walter Edward Harris: Before I do
attempt a very brief answer may I respectfully point to the clock and express the hope that we can finish this before eleven o'clock? The question of hunting and fishing regulations in all provinces will probably come in for a good deal of discussion while this bill is in the process of going through the house. I appreciate what my hon. friend has said, though it does not precisely agree with this recommendation. I believe he is right; I do not think we could put in the bill anything along the lines of the suggestion here. It is a very large question and one on which we will need a lot of advice and good judgment when the bill is going through the house.


John Horne Blackmore: One could hardly ask for anything more. I am sure the minister clearly recognizes that there is a problem which must be met. It cannot be met by the only means the Indians can think of, but it can be met

Indian Act
by a sufficiently liberal allowance to those Indians who find themselves in this difficult position.
I am still watching the clock; I do not know whether I will go beyond eleven o'clock or not. It will depend upon how the minister answers these questions. The next is:
No form of voting in any white man's election must be forced upon the Indian without his consent.
It appears that such a provision is being considered through an amendment to the elections act. Will the minister make a pronouncement on that?


Walter Edward Harris: I think my hon. friend could have done that himself. He is quite aware of the fact that the amendment of the Dominion Elections Act last year did not force the white man's vote upon the Indian. He may exercise the franchise if he wishes. If he does not wish he need not do so.


John Horne Blackmore: The important thing
the Indians were thinking about was whether or not there would be an additional amendment of the elections act. The minister naturally will answer that he has no control over that act, but just the same he is a member of the government; when he speaks he speaks for the government, and the government must be bound by what he says. Would the minister express it as his solemn conviction that there is in the mind of the government no thought of doing any such thing as changing the elections act so as to jeopardize the position of the Indian with respect to his citizenship?


Walter Edward Harris: I think that is a little too much to ask a minister. All I can say is that the amendment of last year speaks for itself. I think it was well thought out and will be justified by the passage of time.


John Horne Blackmore: The chief difficulty I find is that deep in their minds the Indians feel they cannot trust the white man in respect to this matter. They know that by devices of this kind they can be dispossessed and turned adrift without adequate preparation to compete in the economy of the white man, and they will not be able to do a thing about it. I suppose the government cannot go any farther, but it should make a declaration, as binding as a treaty with the Indians, that for at least thirty or forty years no such thing as that will be even contemplated. I should go a little further on this point, and I am watching the clock. It should be recognized that until the Indians have been educated and trained in all branches of education in which we train our own youth, no one should even remotely contemplate such a thing as jeopardizing the Indians' position on

the reserve. In so doing they would be committing a crime against the Indians, for which there could be no compensation. I suppose that is the best thing we can do, but it is a matter of our attitude as a nation.
There is one more matter. Do the provisions of the bill fail to recognize, that in the words of Lieutenant Governor Alexander Laird, "It takes two to make a bargain"? What is the minister's opinion on that?


Walter Edward Harris: That particular quotation had to do with treaties and the making of treaties. As my friend has already pointed out, we are not dealing with treaties in this particular legislation. There are occasional references to treaties, guaranteeing their continued existence in one respect or another. The Indian Act has been on the statute books of this country from 1869, and from the recital I gave this afternoon of the efforts which have been made to ascertain Indian opinion concerning this bill, we have gone just about as far as anyone can be expected to go. This afternoon I assured the house that if out of the conference we are going to have there are opinions to be brought to the attention of the house, or amendments to be made, I shall certainly draw them to the attention of the house.


John Horne Blackmore: Now, that is good. This
is the last point. Is there any reason why we should not put a stipulation in the bill which will give the Indian the right, either individually or through the band council, to appeal to the supreme court of his province in case he feels he has been treated unjustly?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman,
this afternoon the member for Kamloops pointed out that at the meeting he attended the Indians felt that the act might be divided into sections in which there would be a part applying to British Columbia, having in mind the fact that those Indians are not under treaty. I think the point is clear that this bill, and the Indian Act, must cover all the Indians in Canada. There will be sections in the act which do not relate to the Indians in one province but to those in another. Now, that is understandable. Similarly, there are sections in the act under which a decision must be made administratively by the minister, and upon which I think the house would agree no appeal is necessary or desirable, in the interests of the Indian and the administration of the act.
On the other hand, there are certain rights the Indian may have which, if passed upon by the minister, may properly be the subject of reference to some other body, be it a supreme court judge or a county court judge; that is

only a matter of detail and can be worked out. I do not think my hon. friend would expect that, in every case where a minister made a decision, there should be an appeal to a judge. For example, if refusal is given to a loan under the revolving fund, would my hon. friend expect an appeal to the supreme court of Alberta concerning why the minister refused that particular loan? I do not think so.


John Horne Blackmore: It could be safeguarded
by stipulating that it should be with the consent of the band.


William Scottie Bryce: Has the minister had an opportunity of consulting his cabinet colleagues and the officers of the department on whether the Indian committee will be set up and have the opportunity of hearing the Indians?


Walter Edward Harris: I thought I said this afternoon that we would have a special committee.


William Scottie Bryce: I am just trying to get this
point clear, Mr. Chairman. I do not want to go away under any misapprehension. Will the committee be appointed in time to meet the Indians who are here?


Walter Edward Harris: I said this afternoon if the house agreed to second reading, of course.
Indian Act


John Horne Blackmore: I am in a position in which it is difficult for me and my colleagues to make a decision. It would be easy for me to carry the debate over eleven o'clock, but whether or not that is in the best interests of the Indians, I do not know. I wish I could have an opportunity of consulting with the Indians. Everything being considered, it looks to us, considering the fact that the minister has impressed us as being honest in his intention, as if it is best for us to allow the resolution to go through.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 79, respecting Indians.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow is private members' day, Mr. Speaker, and we will follow the order set out in standing order 15.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.	j
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 28, 1951